Arguments for the existence of an immaterial soul

89 posts / 0 new
Last post
8 May, 2014 - 19:10
Offline
Joined: 3 years 3 days ago

Ah yes, I should also explain more clearly about the names. There were some 300 names that could be found by modifying bible names and known Hebrew roots, but some were puzzling. This number has been decreasing continually as more knowledge has been gained. Now they're very few and I think most or all are indeterminate (nobodies sure if our interpretation of the names is right, not enough evidence but some, that kind of thing.) I think we can conclusively say all BoM names are authentic.

8 May, 2014 - 19:35
Offline
Joined: 3 years 4 months ago

"(I shouldn't even have to explain it, but it seems like you've fallen for the traps of the foolish and it doesn't seem like your comprehending the apologists completely logical reasonings)"- II, I recommend you refrain from things like this. What it sounds like is: "Its obviously true, you're too dumb to see it. Don't you see how smart the people saying these things are?". Or at least that's how I interpret it. It's not very convincing.

Loan shifting as in, words changing meaning when translated? Of course that happens.

How does your response address ANYTHING that the previous commenter said? Other than the first big paragraph. I think succinctness might help.

Mr. Purple: I just recently heard something about how the pyramids were created. Wet sand has a LOT less friction, and makes dragging huge stones across it a lot easier, and there is no mounds created in front.

Bateman

8 May, 2014 - 19:48
Offline
Joined: 3 years 4 months ago

Just followed that link about swords. It's written in a very arrogant tone. But then again, that's their job.

I also wouldn't count that as an argument against Mormonism. No swords have been found, doesn't mean there weren't any.

8 May, 2014 - 20:25
Offline
Joined: 4 years 2 months ago

John wrote:

Near death experiences are not death experiences. Having your heart stop for 2 to 10 minutes and being promptly resuscitated doesn’t make you ‘clinically dead.’ It only means your heart isn’t beating and you may not be conscious.

I said, "It is an unfortunate misnomer, because it conceals the very important point that these are often not situations in which a person nearly dies, but situations in which a person actually dies."

It is tempting to say that when this happens, the person was never really dead, as if it follows from the mere fact that this person is now alive. But the notion of the permanence of death is nothing more than dogma. Death seems like it would have to be permanent, but that just isn't the fact.

John wrote:

Experiences similar to near-death experiences have been experienced by pilots blacking out under g-forces, brain damage, hallucinogenic drugs and reportedly even by electrical stimulation of the right angular gyrus in the temporal lobe. The evidence points to the conclusion that the mind and brain are not separate entities but one and the same.

Brain states and experiences are correlated so that a soul existing apart from a brain may not exist in a form that is familiar to us as being similar to what we call 'mind' or 'experience.' I might say the same of certain radio waves. They don't exist in a form that reminds me of anything I think of when I consider the experience of 'being online.' I could take my router and "drug" it in certain ways: hog bandwidth, use a different kind of connection, etc., and there would be a real causal relationship much like the ones you described, between those adjustments and the way that the internet performs. Indeed, I couldn't even log on without my router, but far from being "one and the same," the router can't even produce wifi.

Without even a rudimentary understanding of how radio works, the evidence wouldn't point one way or the other.

8 May, 2014 - 21:27
Offline
Joined: 4 years 2 months ago

John wrote:

Philosophers have been debating the monism/dualism issue for a long time. I agree with the views of Michael Shermer expressed in his book "The Believing Brain" when he states that if 'the soul is the unique pattern of information that represents a person, and unless there is some medium to retain the pattern of our personal information after we die, our soul dies with us. In this sense, the soul is the unique pattern of information that represents a person, and unless there is some medium to retain the pattern of our personal information after we die, our soul dies with us. Our bodies are made of proteins, coded by our DNA, so with the disintegration of DNA our protein patterns are lost forever. Our memories and personality are stored in the patterns of neurons firing in our brains and the synaptic connections between them, so when those neurons die and those synaptic connections are broken, it spells the death of our memories and personality. The effect is similar to the ravages of stroke, dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease, but absolute and final. No brain, no mind; no body, no soul."

If the death of my memory and personality means the death of my soul, then of course what Shermer says is true.

But I am not convinced.

If I knew today that I were to die and be consigned to oblivion tomorrow, it would give me no comfort to know that you were going to have a baby tomorrow. "So what?" I would say. "I don't want just anyone to be alive tomorrow. I want the person who is alive to be me."

I would say the same not just about tomorrow, but about the next day, the next week, the next year, the next hundred years; I want the person who is alive a thousand years from now to be me. And if 200 years from now, I move away and change my name, that is still okay with me, just so long as I am relatively healthy and happy. And if in my new land I make some new friends, that's okay too. Learn a new language and stop visiting with my old friends; those things are fine, really, the thought does not make me uncomfortable. "Use it or lose it," they say, and it only takes another 100 more years before I forget how to speak English entirely, even though I will remember that I did once speak English. My goals and desires change with time, and eventually I forget that I had once changed my name or spoken English at all. But I still wake up in the morning.

There are many particular days of my life that I will never think of again. Let us say that on one of those days I said to someone, "One day, I'll probably forget that we had this conversation entirely." This probably did happen at least once.

Why do I not mourn the death of that person on that day? This person with goals and beliefs that were different, different friends, different tastes. I don't mourn that person because I do not believe he is dead. Rather, I believe that I am that person, and that so long as I have sufficient substance of memory and awareness to have a personal identity, certain memories can change or disappear without claiming my soul. So memories and personality alone are insufficient to be the seat or entirety of my soul.

John wrote:

In any case even if we cannot fully explain a mystery with natural means does not mean it requires a supernatural explanation.

I won't touch this unless you want to explain what you mean by "supernatural." I am not suggesting any reality that is somehow beyond the limits of nature.

9 May, 2014 - 05:13
Offline
Joined: 3 years 3 days ago

"I think succinctness might help." Sorry, yes. Mostly I was updating my arguments in there from my new information.

"(I shouldn't even have to explain it, but it seems like you've fallen for the traps of the foolish and it doesn't seem like your comprehending the apologists completely logical reasonings)" Ah, yes. sorry and sorry Mr. Purple :(

Loan-shifting as in naming things unfamiliar to your vocabulary by things you know. This happens when people are exposed to alien environments like people coming to the new world from the old. I thought I explained this in my last post, but perhaps I was not clear.

"Just followed that link about swords. It's written in a very arrogant tone. But then again, that's their job." Agreed

Basically, agreed Bateman.

9 May, 2014 - 06:05
Offline
Joined: 3 years 3 days ago

Sorry, but this is very, very, very weak as I will show.

"Nobody actually knows for sure Joseph Smiths exact level of intelligence and resources available to him"

Obviously not specifically to him. But if you'd do any research you'd find that there is knowledge specific to the time period and Joseph Smith and he knew far, far, far too much. Mesoamerican archaeology at the time practically didn't exist, the early native American chroniclers had only managed to get a few articles by the Catholic church (all others were censored and stuffed in library's til the 20th century when people started finding them.) As shown in an article linked, the Middle Eastern geography he described wasn't known. Nobody knew the akkadian language. Until recently we hadn't been able to make conclusions on many of the Book of Mormon names and now we know that just about every one (there are some still up in the air because of lack of knowledge) is authentic and ancient. Just about everything he was mocked for has now been historically verified. Cement, Golden Plates in stone box, etc. Everything in the text is consistent with a Hebrew translation. In essence he made a perfect forgery. This is not unexplainable, its impossible (again, nobody knew enough at the time to make a perfect forgery. It has nothing to do with Joseph Smith or how educated he was or anything like that) except that a third party intervened and when a guy who's surrounded by completely unexplainable (or rather impossible) events throughout his entire life claims to have seen an angel and to have spoken with God its very logical to believe him (especially when there's something called eternal salvation on the line. Ever heard of that?) The BoM is a perfectly accurate ancient religious record. There's no doubt about that. It is now archaeologically, anthropologically and geographically verified. Plus the historical case for someone somehow putting in unexplainable, completely historically accurate knowledge is very, very, very weak. During Joseph's time, (basically the hippie era of the 1800s,) nobody needed any evidence to believe anything. Do ANY research on the climate of the romantic era and you'll find this. This is the romantic era, "You don't need evidence. You need feeling! That's what you need!" So its unlikely he would have thought that would be important. In addition to his impossible ability to put in hundreds of things nobody knew and the obvious culture against this, he would have had to have actually wanted future Mormon's (hundreds+ years after his death) to stay in his church to put in the effort, which would not really affect him, if it was for money as some critics suggest. The evidence would only affect far later generations and if he was just going for money he would get rich and not worry about future generations of LDS members. (Of course its not like he lived a rich lifestyle at all and he was killed for his claims so I think the historical case for that reasoning is rather pathetic as well.

10 May, 2014 - 05:03
Offline
Joined: 5 years 3 months ago

LociInTheSky wrote:

1)there are good reasons, not dogmatic ones, to posit an immaterial soul, and I'll stick my neck out a little bit here and say that I even think 2) there are good reasons to posit a soul that outlives the death of the body,
…...
1)The first good reason a person may posit an immaterial soul is that for all our understanding of matter, a description of how consciousness may arise from it is wholly lacking. I'm not just saying that scientists haven't gotten to the answer yet, I'm saying that they don't even know where to look. They don't even know the questions to ask, because a fully-reconciled physical theory of the mechanisms by which consciousness can arise from matter isn't even visible out there on the horizon.
…...
An immaterial substance that could interact in some way with matter could produce consciousness in theory, so in attempting to answer this question, an immaterial soul is as good a place to start as any other.

You make it sound as though our knowledge of consciousness is in the same state as knowledge of the cause of epilepsy and infection was in the middle ages. That does not mean that one day we will not understand it. The fact that physical injury to the brain can lead to loss of consciousness and altered conscious states indicates that at least a physical process is involved. But is there really any reason to believe that there is more than a material, physical process inside the brain.
Just because there is not a fully reconciled physical theory of consciousness does not mean that a 'theory of the soul' which posits some immaterial substance that continues to exist after the death of the brain is a more likely explanation. It may be right but I think it just adds complexity and raises more questions than it answers.

LociInTheSky wrote:

If the death of my memory and personality means the death of my soul, then of course what Shermer says is true.
……..
Rather, I believe that I am that person, and that so long as I have sufficient substance of memory and awareness to have a personal identity, certain memories can change or disappear without claiming my soul. So memories and personality alone are insufficient to be the seat or entirety of my soul.

I remain confused over exactly what a soul is.

LociInTheSky wrote:

I might say the same of certain radio waves. They don't exist in a form that reminds me of anything I think of when I consider the experience of 'being online.' I could take my router and "drug" it in certain ways: hog bandwidth, use a different kind of connection, etc., and there would be a real causal relationship much like the ones you described, between those adjustments and the way that the internet performs. Indeed, I couldn't even log on without my router, but far from being "one and the same," the router can't even produce wifi.

An interesting model and possibly correct but there is little to no evidence from which it could be inferred much less tested.
Wouldn't such a model rely on some other extra physical material element - eg an ISP provider or radio transmitter as well as the router(mind) and radio waves (soul) - apologies if I have bastardized your analogy.
I believe the physical model is the better explanation and has elements of simplicity and consistency with the physical world I see around me.

LociInTheSky wrote:

I won't touch this unless you want to explain what you mean by "supernatural." I am not suggesting any reality that is somehow beyond the limits of nature.

We are on the same page there and I do not have the time or energy to broaden the conversation in that direction either.

For further reference may I suggest
The short version posted earlier in this thread - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDcZkrl-eoY
The very long version are a series of philosophy lectures starting at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR63MMAi-fs

10 May, 2014 - 16:40
JC
JC's picture
Offline
Joined: 2 years 10 months ago

@Bateman: I see what you mean, and that looks correct

10 May, 2014 - 23:07
Offline
Joined: 2 years 10 months ago

Intelligent Introvert, you may trust the apologists a bit more than is warranted. Making falsifiable claims unfalsifiable and using a ton of Ad-Hoc modifications to keep Mormonism from being completely disqualified to believers, is the core of what apologists do. Interestingly enough, pseudoscience does the same thing which is one of the main distinguishing factors between science and pseudoscience.

Why in your opinion do you thing the whole of the scientific community in each of these fields is so unimpressed by BoM evidence? Do you think its some kind of conspiracy that most scientists don't find it the least bit compelling? The best way to check if these things only seem probable to you because of bias, is to talk to people who don't have skin in the game.

"when a guy who's surrounded by completely unexplainable (or rather impossible) events throughout his entire life claims to have seen an angel and to have spoken with God its very logical to believe him"
No, no its not. Especially when those "unexplainable events" are mostly things we have to take his(or apologists) word for. You are advocating for just blindly believing in whatever a person tells you(Unicorns, fairies) so long as they have unexplainable events in their life? Maybe think this one through a bit more?

"Perfect forgery" "The BoM is a perfectly accurate ancient religious record. There's no doubt about that. It is now archaeologically, anthropologically and geographically verified."
C'mon man, you don't think that's a tad hyperbolic? To say that there is "no doubt " in regards to a view that probably wouldn't be supported by a single(!) non-Mormon scientist should seriously make you think about how honest you are being with yourself. If your view of Mormonism is that incredibly rose tinted despite your looking into Mormon criticisms,(I'm just assuming you've read through the same links you've posted) then I'm starting to feel like you are being disingenuous. Not even the apologists you cite have such a unencumbered view of Mormonism.

On another note:
Book of Abraham
Misleading Members Check these out?

11 May, 2014 - 06:28
Offline
Joined: 5 years 3 months ago

Mr. Purple wrote:

On another note:
Book of Abraham
Misleading Members Check these out?

Interesting links Mr Purple.
A similar documentary is "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn1iGvXU0dI"
To me they seem like knockout blows for rational belief in any divine origin of the Book of Abraham and I would think of mormonism as well.
That seems to leave only more nefarious alternatives.

John wrote:

The truth is out there.

The problem seems to be recognising the truth when it is out there.

11 May, 2014 - 06:35
Offline
Joined: 3 years 4 months ago

Intelligent Introvert wrote:

Basically, agreed Bateman.

:)

JC wrote:

@Bateman: I see what you mean, and that looks correct

:)

Mr. Purple wrote:

Why in your opinion do you thing the whole of the scientific community in each of these fields is so unimpressed by BoM evidence? Do you think its some kind of conspiracy that most scientists don't find it the least bit compelling? The best way to check if these things only seem probable to you because of bias, is to talk to people who don't have skin in the game.

I agree with Mr. Purple. Look at what the motivations of the people are. If someone is motivated to prove BoM(or anything else), they consciously or unconsciously ignore evidence against it(cherry picking, such as only looking at those prophecies that "came true").

That does of course go the other way, there are some people who are very motivated to disprove BoM, such as competing religions. Scientists tend to try to be unbiased though.

Bateman

11 May, 2014 - 08:23
Offline
Joined: 3 years 3 days ago

"I agree with Mr. Purple. Look at what the motivations of the people are. If someone is motivated to prove BoM(or anything else), they consciously or unconsciously ignore evidence against it(cherry picking, such as only looking at those prophecies that "came true").
That does of course go the other way, there are some people who are very motivated to disprove BoM, such as competing religions. Scientists tend to try to be unbiased though."

Agreed. That's why soon i'll be moving to primary sources and doing studies in the actual fields. The one hard thing to lie with is math, however. That's why wordprints are convincing. I read that they used wordprints to determine what language the BoM was translated from (if any) and found that it was Hebrew from 600 B.C. I'm seeing if this is true right now...

"The best way to check if these things only seem probable to you because of bias, is to talk to people who don't have skin in the game."

That's partly why I started this debate up again.

"No, no its not. Especially when those "unexplainable events" are mostly things we have to take his(or apologists) word for. You are advocating for just blindly believing in whatever a person tells you(Unicorns, fairies) so long as they have unexplainable events in their life? Maybe think this one through a bit more?"

Agreed. I think a better way to say this is that if you show that everything or most things but (JS saw an angel, Christ, who visited the Americas is the son of God) etc. is true then you can inductively assume that everything else is true and make that jump.

As far as why scientists aren't converting like flies? Well.

a. We're a small religion so few have studied it.
b. Few who have studied it aren't invested in another religion.
c. Few of those few look at all the evidence for and against and so might see the BoA and become unconvinced.
d. Then they see the cultural Mormons leaving for the same reasons and assume its not true.
e. That's pretty much everyone, easily possible. You cannot rely on the lack of acceptance or acceptance of others to determine what you do unless you are positive they have seen the whole thing.

Interesting videos. I would make the following points though.

I have observed the anti-Mormon genre misquoting and doing the same things as FAIR and it is perhaps just as easily possible that they misquoted in their attacks. (I don't know, I'll have to fact check. I doubt it though)
The fact that we were encouraged to look at this stuff in my ward is suggestive that the church is not quite as closed as they'd like it to be... Definitely not wide open though.

BoA: Yeah, he's probably right.

11 May, 2014 - 10:59
tom
tom's picture
Offline
Joined: 2 years 10 months ago

Hey folks, sorry for the late reply.

metivier wrote:

They sure can be a useful tool in prayer and even as a non-believer, I've written a book about doing it. But the influence of religious thinkers in the preservation and distribution of mnemonics throughout history supports none of the positions formulating here.

We are in full agreement on this topic. The only thing I wanted to show was that religious thinkers had a huge influence in the history of mnemonics and that there can be a strong connection between the two (similar to that between art and religion).

What I disagree with is that you seem to think that the existence of God can only be proven in a scientific way - by studying supernatural events like miracles etc. [Correct me if I'm wrong!] Most proofs for the existence of God are metaphysical in nature, though. They rely on philosophical reasoning and logic. These disciplines are not scientific but still they are rightly regarded as knowledge.

metivier wrote:

I won't be raising a glass to such a position, though I most certainly will share a drink with you (and any of you, regardless of your beliefs) should we have the opportunity to tap glasses.

And I with you.

--

Bateman wrote:

@tom: The correct this to do is not believe a claim until it's demonstrated. That is different from believing that the claim is false. The latter requires proof, the former does not.

Well, what about things like the existence of other minds, free will etc? These ideas have never been proven to me, yet I firmly believe in them because my life only makes sense if I actually have free will etc. My reasoning regarding belief in God is similar.

Of course I am not saying that you or anyone must believe because of that, just that it's not irrational to do so.

--

Thanks LociInTheSky, metivier, Bateman, Intelligent Introvert and the others for this civil discussion. My experience has been that discussing religious topics via internet inevitably results in flame wars. This is one of the few exceptions.

tom

11 May, 2014 - 11:52
Offline
Joined: 2 years 10 months ago

"The fact that we were encouraged to look at this stuff in my ward is suggestive that the church is not quite as closed as they'd like it to be... Definitely not wide open though."

Huh, I got a pretty clear message that I wasn't supposed to look at this kind of stuff in my ward. I came away with a strong feeling that no matter how convincing the "anti-Mormons" might sound, everything they say Is not to be trusted and I could easily be "tricked" (instead of convinced). The use of the word anti-Mormon probably has one of the strongest negative connotations of anything I remember from church, even though it wasn't a common topic. Props to your ward for being critical thinkers though.

11 May, 2014 - 15:29
Offline
Joined: 3 years 3 days ago

Interesting Mr. Purple. Well i'll begin viewing primary sources. Nice debating with you!

11 May, 2014 - 19:21
Offline
Joined: 1 year 11 months ago

Quote:

Thanks LociInTheSky, metivier, Bateman, Intelligent Introvert and the others for this civil discussion. My experience has been that discussing religious topics via internet inevitably results in flame wars. This is one of the few exceptions.

This is the most reasonable discussion about religion I've ever seen in a forum. Nice work... :)

P.S., if anyone wants to quote something that another user wrote, you can use [quote][/quote] tags and put the quoted text in the middle. To add a name, use something like [quote=Josh][/quote]. It will look like this:

Josh wrote:

This text is between the opening and closing tags.

I'll try to add a button for that in the editing screen at some point.

9 April, 2015 - 13:00
r30
r30's picture
Offline
Joined: 3 years 2 months ago

More interesting is how did you wrote

[*quote=Josh][/quote*]

in a normal paragraph without it looking like this:

Josh wrote:

? (I had to add the '*'-s to avoid that very thing)

9 April, 2015 - 13:44
Offline
Joined: 1 year 11 months ago

HTML entities. :)

To prevent the text filters and browser from parsing certain symbols, you can encode them.

That line was written something like this:

[quote=Josh][/quote]

If you copy that line above into a comment and submit it, it will display this:
[quote=Josh][/quote]

10 April, 2015 - 13:21
r30
r30's picture
Offline
Joined: 3 years 2 months ago

What's a soul? Something that's independent of my body, and remains after death. Does it have consciousness? I sure hope not, because spending a lot of time ("eternity"?) with that consciousness is just so boring. Even if I go to paradise, it would bore me to madness. There is a Darmatter2525 video about it.

Better if I have no soul, and just cease to exist forever when I die. Probably the best thing that will ever happen to me (really!) :D.

That's just a speculation. We have yet no idea what will actually happen. This remembers me the solipsicism thoughts - if I die and my mind ceases to exist, then does it mean that everything is ended, since there is no me anymore to sense the universe?

10 April, 2015 - 13:29
Offline
Joined: 3 years 4 months ago

Haha r30 :D
I was actually curious about that as well, and being moderator I just clicked 'edit' on Joshes comment to see how he did it.

10 April, 2015 - 13:37
Offline
Joined: 1 year 11 months ago

Quote:

We have yet no idea what will actually happen.

"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."
—Mark Twain

That keeps me sane. Also geology and astronomy. I'm satisfied enough with these handful of decades.

6 May, 2015 - 01:07
Offline
Joined: 1 year 11 months ago

I don't know what a soul is.

But I am happy with my existing 7 octillion bodily atoms, (7x10^27) and the fact I still have (and had) the chance to exist in this planet in the first place.

Because not all probable human DNA combinations gets that chance to become alive. I guess we hit the lottery ticket of life, folks.

7 May, 2015 - 03:48
r30
r30's picture
Offline
Joined: 3 years 2 months ago

r30 wrote:

Better if I have no soul, and just cease to exist forever when I die....if I die and my mind ceases to exist, then does it mean that everything is ended, since there is no me anymore to sense the universe?

The idea of "no me" is just so incomprehensible. If my mind really does cease to exist after I die, then it can't be "forever" or any amount of time, because there is no me to sense the dimension of time (because I have no "memory"). It did last for an amount of time for those who are still alive. Like theory of relativity - different observers comprehend time differently. How do you know that while you have finished reading this sentence, the universe didn't freeze everything in it (including you) for a billion of years? You wouldn't feel it.

Example:
People pass out without the knowledge of what happened meanwhile, and yet the universe around them goes on. For a moment they lost their consciousness.

Objectively speaking, you didn't react. Subjectively speaking, you don't remember.
What the f*ck is "subjective" anyway? Physics says it's probably electrical signals in your brain. So, objectively physically speaking, there wasn't a cause for your subjectiveness to exist.

So, if I somehow were to revive your body after being dead for a century, there are some interesting questions:

  • Is it "you" who I revived, or a copy of you?
  • Did you perceive something else meanwhile that century passed, maybe you were tortured for 10 000 years in hell without you remembering it?

How to test for that "lost memory", if it exists? What we should do is teach people in their death beds to start creating memory palaces, then there is a greater chance they'll remember sth of it xD.
Lol, actually these questions can't be answered until we know exactly what "consciousness" is, what is "subjective", and how universe works. And yet, how will we ever "truelly" know what the "box" itself is, when we are a part of it?

7 May, 2015 - 07:04
Offline
Joined: 3 years 4 months ago

r30 wrote:

Is it "you" who I revived, or a copy of you?
Did you perceive something else meanwhile that century passed, maybe you were tortured for 10 000 years in hell without you remembering it?
How to test for that "lost memory", if it exists? What we should do is teach people in their death beds to start creating memory palaces, then there is a greater chance they'll remember sth of it xD.
Lol, actually these questions can't be answered until we know exactly what "consciousness" is, what is "subjective", and how universe works. And yet, how will we ever "truelly" know what the "box" itself is, when we are a part of it?

It's you that's revived. The topic of cryonics is very interesting.
If you were dead, you did not perceive anything. You did of course perceive 'the light' or other such phenomena as you died, since the body naturally releases substances similar to those found in magic mushrooms, making you have strong hallucinations.

"How do you know that while you have finished reading this sentence, the universe didn't freeze everything in it (including you) for a billion of years?"
How do you know that you didn't just wake up for the first time today with all your 'memories' implanted in your brain by some sentient being playing 'Sims' on a quantum 10-dimensional computer?

I think of death like sleep, except you don't dream and you don't wake up. Time just moves. You cease to exist. It is indeed very difficult to grasp this concept with your mind. It seems like all my intelligent friends went through an existential crisis at some point in their lives. After that, you cease to worry about it. It doesn't matter. Just do the best you can. See what you can accomplish. See how far you can push life.

Bateman

7 May, 2015 - 09:16
r30
r30's picture
Offline
Joined: 3 years 2 months ago

My life is about mysteries. Everything else is boring.

7 May, 2015 - 09:18
Offline
Joined: 3 years 4 months ago

Doctor House? Is that really you?

Or could it be Mr. Sherlock Holmes?

:D

7 May, 2015 - 09:44
r30
r30's picture
Offline
Joined: 3 years 2 months ago

You don't like mysteries? Hard to believe. Anything new, untested, your visions... Mysteries are just on top of those things.

And ok, I admit it was a quote from House :D. Just wanted to point out the irony that thinking about death is one of the things that makes me happy.

Learn memory techniques for free! Just click the "Sign up" button below to create an account and we'll send you an email with some tips on how to get started.

Related content: