Are we alive?


Jamie123
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quote

"Was I alive? I hoped so, but only because if this was the location of the afterlife, I’d be lodging an appeal immediately." Gail Honeyman, Eleanor Oliphant

If we were dead and our current "life" was actually purgatory (or "spirit prison" I suppose you guys call it) would we necessarily know it? From what's been going on with me lately it would make a lot of sense... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

If we were dead and our current "life" was actually purgatory (or "spirit prison" I suppose you guys call it) would we necessarily know it? From what's been going on with me lately it would make a lot of sense... 

If we were dead, then death wouldn't be death.

If we witness death in others, then we must by definition be alive.

If you're trying to change definitions of words, then please offer those definitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me this is the same as the philosophical question that is answered by "Cogito, ergo sum"  aka "I think therefore I am"

We are alive because our senses tell us we are alive...  If our senses deceive us (which they can) then we can be sure of nothing... except "Cogito, ergo sum"

I am alive because my senses tell me I am alive, and I have no reason to doubt them at this point.  And that is as far as we can take it as anything more then a pure thought experiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I am alive because my senses tell me I am alive, and I have no reason to doubt them at this point.  And that is as far as we can take it as anything more then a pure thought experiment.

Indeed. It's like Russell's flying teapot in orbit around Mars; unfalsifiable and logically unnecessary. Perhaps heaven, hell and purgatory are what they are, whether in life, afterlife or dreams.

Quote

"In reality as in dreams, what matters is the answer we find in our hearts to the test of Despite." Stephen R. Donaldson

 

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

If we were dead and our current "life" was actually purgatory (or "spirit prison" I suppose you guys call it) would we necessarily know it? From what's been going on with me lately it would make a lot of sense... 

A few thoughts:

  • Sounds like you're going through a rough patch. I'm sorry to hear it.
  • The Catholic idea of "purgatory" is a place where we are expurgated (or purged) from iniquity. In Dante's Purgatory, it is a place of suffering and learning, but essentially a place of hope, because its denizens know that they will eventually graduate to Heaven. Only those condemned to Hell have no hope of heaven. In this sense, Latter-day Saints might think of our present mortal life as a sort of purgatory.
  • Spirit prison, as it is popularly called among the Saints, refers to the state of the unrighteous after death. We are not really told a lot about it, except that it is not pleasant. We are told there is another abode of the dead, which we believe the crucified Lord called "paradise" when speaking with one of the thieves hanged with him. This is a place of rest, contentment, and great joy. Even here, though, we are told that those long dead view their state as a sort of imprisonment.
  • The idea of our life being an afterlife, either benign or an actual hell, without our conscious awareness of it is popular in literature and the arts. A popular example is the movie The Sixth Sense. Sartre's No Exit, which includes the (in)famous line "Hell is other people", is kinda-sorta-not-really-but-in-a-way an example of this, almost the same thing but looked at from the opposite direction, where the people realize they're dead but slowly become aware that death and the afterlife are not what they thought
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:

The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,

                      Hath had elsewhere its setting,

                         And cometh from afar:

                      Not in entire forgetfulness,

                      And not in utter nakedness,

But trailing clouds of glory do we come

                      From God, who is our home:

Heaven lies about us in our infancy!

Shades of the prison-house begin to close

                      Upon the growing Boy,

But he beholds the light, and whence it flows,

                      He sees it in his joy;

The Youth, who daily farther from the east

                      Must travel, still is Nature's Priest,

                      And by the vision splendid

                      Is on his way attended;

At length the Man perceives it die away,

And fade into the light of common day.

 -- Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood, William Wordsworth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

- Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood, William Wordsworth

Good old Willy. My favourite is the one about the stone circle. "Speak, giant mother! Tell it to the morn, as she dispells the cumbrous shades of night! Let the moon hear, emerging from a cloud, at whose behest uprose on British ground that sisterhood in hieroglyphic round  forshadowing some have said the infinite inviolable God that tames the proud."

"Cumbrous" is a lovely word. You want to say it over and over. "Cumbrous shades of night."

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

If we were dead and our current "life" was actually purgatory (or "spirit prison" I suppose you guys call it) would we necessarily know it? From what's been going on with me lately it would make a lot of sense... 

I believe @Vort is smarter than many recognize - We cannot say we are alive until we clearly define life.  I find it interesting that one of the elements of science that defines life is the ability to reproduce.  There is some question if a virus is living because it is something that requires another life to reproduce.  But I have never encountered that individuals in the LGBT community may not actually be alive????

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I believe @Vort is smarter than many recognize - We cannot say we are alive until we clearly define life.  I find it interesting that one of the elements of science that defines life is the ability to reproduce.  There is some question if a virus is living because it is something that requires another life to reproduce.  But I have never encountered that individuals in the LGBT community may not actually be alive????

 

The Traveler

Also a computer virus can reproduce, but does that make it alive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Also a computer virus can reproduce, but does that make it alive?

Two points - First a computer virus does not reproduce without a new host and does not continue to make additional copies of itself in a current host.  Second is that there can be other items that define life.  But the ability to reproduce is a function of life - at least all life as we know it and have empirical evidence.

The point is that life must be able to sustain itself - or life cannot continue.  The scientific term from what appears only to be an exception; is antidotal.  I realize that there is a great tendency to argue antidotal points but such thinking, of itself, is not sustainable. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/23/2021 at 4:22 PM, Traveler said:

First a computer virus does not reproduce without a new host and does not continue to make additional copies of itself in a current host. 

I disagree.

According to most authorities a "virus" is a code fragment that attaches itself to an an executable file and runs when that program executes. One of the things it can do when it runs is to make copies of itself to other executable files. It is therefore akin to a regular virus, which attaches itself to existing DNA with a similar effect. But not everyone owould agree that even this kind of virus is "alive" (in the sense that a mouse, or even an amoeba is "alive") so perhaps that's not very helpful.

There are other kinds of malware more like living organisms, such as "worms" which are complete stand-alone programs, which can even propagate between hosts in a network. Some people refer to these as "viruses" - though others say this is incorrect. Computer malware is a relatively new subject area that a stable system of nomenclature has not yet evolved.

On 4/23/2021 at 4:22 PM, Traveler said:

The scientific term from what appears only to be an exception; is antidotal.  I realize that there is a great tendency to argue antidotal points but such thinking, of itself, is not sustainable. 

Merriam Webster defines "antidotal" as:

Quote

of, relating to, or acting as an antidote

and "antidote" as:

Quote
1: a remedy to counteract the effects of poison ("needed the antidote for the snake's venom")
2: something that relieves, prevents, or counteracts ("an antidote to boredom")

Are you sure you don't mean "anecdotal"? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You do realize he's the king of malaprops, right?

Just forgive him and move on.  We know what he means.

I'm not sure I understand. I've always understood "anecdotal" to mean something like: "based on personal experience which is too specific to support general conclusions". For example, if in my whole life I were to meet three Scotsmen, and found them all to be dishonest, my statement "all Scotsmen are dishonest" would be based on anecdotal evidence. But that doesn't seem to be quite what Traveler is saying.

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

I'm not sure I understand. I've always understood "anecdotal" to mean something like: "based on personal experience which is too specific to support general conclusions". For example, if in my whole life I were to meet three Scotsmen, and found them all to be dishonest, my statement "all Scotsmen are dishonest" would be based on anecdotal evidence. But that doesn't seem to be quite what Traveler is saying.

Yes, he actually meant "anecdotal" or some combination of that with "antithetical". He also tends to get the "precise" definitions of words off by a bit.

But in spite of his linguistic weaknesses, he does tend to make sense in the end if you're just willing and able to give him the benefit of the doubt.

i.e. forgive him his weaknesses and just move on assuming you kinda sorta know what he really meant.  Then you can see that he really has some pearls sometimes.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

assuming you kinda sorta know what he really meant.

I'm sure you're right about Traveler, and I don't mean him any disrespect. On the other hand, being satisfied with "kinda sorta" understanding has got me into trouble in the past. For example, for years I misunderstood the word "precept". I "kinda sorta" understood it to mean "concept" - or maybe something that precedes a concept (hence the "pre"); perhaps an idea you have to grasp before the main concepts can be understood. When I found out what it really meant my entire worldview shifted. Another example: as a young man (and being very slightly dyslexic) I always misread "disingenuous" as "disingenious" which I took to be the opposite of "ingenious". For all I knew there could have been something similar going on with "antidotal" - perhaps a secondary meaning of "antidote" that I was unaware of. So my apologies to Traveler - no disrespect intended.

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

I'm sure you're right about Traveler, and I don't mean him any disrespect. On the other hand, being satisfied with "kinda sorta" understanding has got me into trouble in the past. For example, for years I misunderstood the word "precept". I "kinda sorta" understood it to mean "concept" - or maybe something that precedes a concept (hence the "pre"); perhaps an idea you have to grasp before the main concepts can be understood. When I found out what it really meant my entire worldview shifted. Another example: as a young man (and being very slightly dyslexic) I always misread "disingenuous" as "disingenious" which I took to be the opposite of "ingenious". For all I knew there could have been something similar going on with "antidotal" - perhaps a secondary meaning of "antidote" that I was unaware of. So my apologies to Traveler - no disrespect intended.

I didn't think you were disrespecting him.  I was just giving friendly advice on how to interact with his eccentricities in a way that may be profitable for you to converse with him.

1) For reasons stated, you can't get into a semantic discussion with him.  You'll just end up going in circles.
2) Even if he doesn't make sense on the face of what his text seems to convey, there is usually some underlying truth to what he has said.  He just has trouble expressing it.
3) Most of the time there is some wisdom in looking up the real meanings of words as well as their spelling to be able to communicate your message properly. 

  • But when you're speaking with a person who doesn't do that, the best way to understand them is to not be so detailed in listening to every word. 
  • Listen to the overall concept and try to fill in the blanks with what you think he might be saying.
  • Then re-word it (sometimes with definitions) and ask, "Is this what you're saying?"
  • If it a sincere person on the other end (and Traveler is certainly a sincere person) who's actually trying, you'll get to communicate.
  • Other people may be sincere, but they aren't even trying.  They'll tell you no, then repeat what they already said almost verbatim as if that clarifies anything.
  • Then others who are completely insincere will seek to continue in the confusion and purposefully throw more incomprehensible incoherent babble at you as it it means something.

Consider: As a parent, I'm constantly correcting my children's speech -- for vocabulary and grammar.  When I read their written words, I tend to correct their spelling as well.  But how often do you do that with an adult?  Usually, it is considered impolite.  So, what do we do instead?  We just assume that they actually mean "(insert correct word here)" and let them keep talking.

A polite way is for you to respond with an appropriate response as is they said it correctly, but casually insert the correct word and hope they pick up on it.  If they do, great.  If not, just go with it.

In a close-knit group of friends, it may be appropriate to correct a friend.  It helps them after all.  And in some situations (especially legal situations) exact wording is very important.  So, for the purposes of legalities, correcting someone is necessary.

But for the most part, if they're not coming along for the ride... just go with it.

On an online forum where we're specifically having a semantic argument, well... definitions (and spellings) are part of the discussion.  But sometimes, the "semantics" are only one-sided.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we're on the subject of "anecdotal evidence", it's surprising how often it does get used.

For example, I read a few years ago about a judge who, after sentencing someone for murder, observed that this particular murderer - together with several others whose trials he had presided over - was a user of what he called "violent pornography" and how the government must therefore crack down on violent pornography and make it illegal.

Now I'm not suggesting that violent pornography is a good thing (far from it!) but this cannot be good reasoning. For one thing, it fails to consider how many viewers of violent pornography do not commit murder. Secondly, even if the two things were statistically correlated, that does not establish a causal link. Removing violent pornography could have as much effect on the murder rate as increasing the population of pirates would have on global temperatures.

 statistical-snacks_html_40452f201.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share