If the notion of non-existence as implied by materialist death is fundamentally inconceivable to the human mind, does that explain why we gravitate toward beliefs like heaven/hell or reincarnation? Books on this?
It's not inconceivable.
>>24819795We can easily see ourselves not existing, as it is the same gaping nothing we came from.But good new. The universe itself did not come from nothing in a big bag and it will not dissipate into heat-death of nothing. Those are fairytales.The same thing that saves the universe this indignity could also be saving "souls". We could have a real "materialist" afterlife. Books on this? See Electric Universe. This heterodoxy from the mainstream is suppressed as part of a massive Western world conspiracy btw
>>24819795Because how do you explain nothing by asserting something? Its like how people on here make claims against philosophy using reason, you can't escape the confines of mind and language to make assertions against it.
>>24819795Even by the most basic laws of physics under materialist ontology via the conservation of energy points towards reincarnation of some sort or another. The very atoms and energy you are made of will return to the earth and cosmos and get reintegrated into the great cycle again.
>>24819802Existence is defined by experience. Non-experience is definitionally inconceivable. Just the same way "nothing" is inconceivable. To imagine nothing means to imagine something, which makes it definitionally not nothing.
>>24820209Wrong.
>>24820252
>>24819802You can only conceive the idea of non-existence, not non-existence itself.
>>24820144>The very atoms and energy you are made of will return to the earth and cosmos and get reintegrated into the great cycle again.That doesn't mean your consciousness will persist, it ends after bodily death.
>>24820209>To imagine nothing means to imagine something, which makes it definitionally not nothing.i'm imagining nothing
>>24820378No you're not, you're imaging the color black which is something and also the preferred shade of cock you enjoy.
>>24820380I'm not imagining black. I'm imagining nothing.
If nothing wasn't conceived, then the word "nothing" wouldn't exist. Since the word "nothing" exists, then nothing was conceived.
>>24820385You're imagining a large black penis
>>24820395Now I am.
>>24820390>Since the word "nothing" exists, then nothing was conceived.Only as a conceptual something. We can only point to it as an abstract concept but not truly conceive it.
>>24820348Qualia is a ubiquitous feature of existence. The brain just concentrates it for and while and poof back into the ether. Your ego is gone but it is really a form of reincarnation.
>>24820421It's conceptual conceivable but since you can't experience it, then it's fundamentally inconceivable? That's a retarded definition of conceivable that you made up. If it's conceptually conceivable, then it's conceivable.
>>24820430Is there anything that backs up that claim, or is it just pure speculation?
What's in the glass?
>>24820432There's a famous Zen koan that says "the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon". Thinking about nothing isn't the same as conceiving it.
>>24820453Now you're saying you can't conceive anything that doesn't physically exist. You can't conceive of a square?
>>24820448I see a glass.
>>24820474What's in it?
>>24820144>muh substances are defined by emergent complexity forming via the energy gradientStop with this boomer tier process-becoming-flux bs.
>>24820464No, I'm saying what this anon said >>24820209I can only truly conceive of things that presuppose my existence and my ability to experience them.
>>24820475>nothing is when you define an existing object by absence of partsWhat a stupid, unhelpful analogy.
>>24820348>it ends after bodily death.>...IT JUST DOES, OKAY?!
>>24820483You said thinking about it isn't the same as conceiving. That means your definition of "conceive" means you can't conceive of anything abstract like math, geometry, logic, infinity, unicorns, etc. You're essentially confusing the term perceive with conceive.
>>24820493What evidence is there that suggest it doesn't?
>>24819795yeah, religion is basically just a big cope for people who don't want to accept it
>>24820495There's a difference between forming a mental concept and truly grasping what that concept refers to. For example I can conceive of infinity as an abstract construct but I can't comprehend it in any complete or experiential way. That's the kind of "conceiving" I was referring to
>>248204950 is paradoxical in comparison to 1 because it doesn't actually describe anything. Idiot.
>>24820487Nothing's in the glass. Now remove the glass.
>>24820479Whats your counter-argument then?
>>24820502Accept what? Define what?
>>24820504The issue is that's not what the word means. You're shifting the goalposts to be about a experiencing something in order to understand it. That's clearly not what's meant by "conceive.">>24820505No, 0 has a clear definition.
>>24820516>No, 0 has a clear definition.What is 0 of something? Define it clearly.
>>24820516I'm talking about the limits of conceivability, not the word's dictionary definition. Calling nothingness "conceivable" is like saying you can visualize a color you've never seen, which is impossible.
>>24820528You can still conceptually conceive of a new color never seen before. You don't have to actually experience the new color in order to conceive of such a thing. If you couldn't conceive it, then you couldn't talk about it in the first place.
>>24820532No, you're only conceiving the idea that such a color could exist not the color itself. You're still anchored in linguistic-conceptual reasoning, not phenomenological understanding.
>>24820390Incredibly low IQ post.
>>24820546You're redefining the word "conceive". That's the word OP used. You're talking about phenomenology which is about experiencing not conceiving. That's shifting the goalposts.
>>24820549Troll
>>24820554What do you think non-existence is like then? Can you describe it?
>>24820589I'm talking about conceptually conceiving non-existence, not actually experiencing the nothing as it's obviously impossible to experience or conceive complete nothingness directly since those things wouldn't exist either. Talking about conceiving nothingness "itself" is nonsense.
>>24820602Exactly. We can only point to nothingness conceptually, not truly grasp it. That was my point about the limits of conceivability.
>>24820611The OP says>If the notion of non-existence as implied by materialist death is fundamentally inconceivable I'm pointing out that you can have a notion about concept of non-existence.>does that explain why we gravitate toward beliefs like heaven/hell or reincarnation?This question only makes sense if we're talking about the concept. Nothingness is nonsense by itself.
>>24820209>Existence is defined by experience.is getting fucked in the ass by a giant nigger inconceivable for you, anon?
>>24820611I never said we can truly grasp it, if you didn't notice. I only ever said conceptually.
Also, look up the definition of notion.
>>24820640I can conceive of experience (like Tyrone blowing out my brown cherry blossom), I cannot conceive of non-experience, because my existence is definitionally experience-based.
I don't know which idea fucks my brain more: the universe being infinite, or the universe being finite
Man there's a shitload of BBC posting itt. So this is the power of 4chan.
>>24819795Critique of Pure Reason.
>>24820508Probably thinks the Jewish storm god made the world 6000 years ago and if you believe otherwise then its gonna ass rape you with warp fire for all eternity over it.
