On the other hand, in Why the “You” in an Afterlife Wouldn't Really Be You, by Michael Shermer he presents the theory behind how our identities are formed in our heart and that we are reincarnated to another life. He also suggests that our lives are nothing to care about since we do not have control over our lives in the first place. He compares one's organs to pieces of a computer that suggest that they only support it and all that’s left afterward is the identity which is kept in the heart. In the article it says, “First, there is the assumption that our identity is located in our memories, which are presumed to be permanently recorded in the brain: if they could be copied and pasted into a computer or duplicated and implanted into a resurrected …show more content…
He speaks on the theory that once we die the tangible items we deem important will no longer have any value. His view continues with the idea that our minds end once we are dead and that the afterlife has no value. In the article it says, “It is true that when you go to sleep and wake up the next morning or go under anesthesia for surgery and come back hours later, your memories return... a patient's brain is cooled to as low as 50 degrees Fahrenheit, which causes electrical activity in neurons to stop suggesting that long-term memories are stored statically. But that cannot happen if your brain dies.”(Shermer, 2) The method behind the idea that one’s electrical activity in the neurons is what keeps a human alive and that one’s memories are to come to an end once the brain dies. The mindset that we keep our identity and memories is what everyday believes often feel is accurate compared to an existentialist. The integrity in which the life we live will no longer exist once we die and the afterlife cannot exist if we have nothing to
In summary, it is my belief that our mind exists within our brain; however that is just its housing. Upon the death of our physical body our mind moves and inhabits our soul in a similar way. In terms of the immortality of our mind, it undergoes a transformation so great during these transitions that the old mind no longer exists as it did. Over time, if the soul dies as well, and the mind transitions again to a different vessel, these changes continually alter and shape the mind to the point where it is no longer the original.
The only logical conclusion to derive from this observation is that what we consider to be ourselves is not our bodies. As a result, an individual’s personal identity cannot be rooted in just his or her body, unlike what body theorists would like to
...nd the future. I, myself, believe that things do not cease to exist completely in death, but do not have the same type of existence, as they do not. There are different properties of existence between a living and dead person, as one can interact and grow, whereas the other decomposes into the earth. Things can exist in the present and past, and in the future to a degree. The reason why I do not believe that some things exist in the future and so I disagree with eternalism is because of the fact that they could have so easily have not existed. Once they do exist though in the present they must in the past. For example, a baby may have not been conceived at all, but when it is and it is born it exists in the present and past. I agree with presentism more so though, due to the fact that the main point of something’s existence in within the present time of their being.
Discussion of D.Z. Phillips Conception of Immortality In his book 'Death and Immortality', D Z Phillips starts by asking the question: does belief in immortality rest on a mistake? The first two chapters are negative in the sense that they examine traditional philosophical, as well as common sense, conceptions of what immortality means. Phillips argues that philosophical analyses centred on the notion of immortality have generally been constructed around certain essential presuppositions: presuppositions that assume some form of continuation of personal identity after death. One cannot logically deny that, by definition, death entails the end of bodily existence, so one, it seems, is logically drawn to the notion that survival after death entails the survival of some kind of non-bodily identity - the soul. In the last two chapters Phillips disputes this presupposition, claiming that a perfectly valid conception of immortality can be maintained without resorting to any form of dualism.
If death is really real, based upon the animistic quality of our five physical senses, then how do we know that we are truly alive and breathing, not in a dream? It has been proposed that people aware the existence of surroundings majorly rely on their five senses, which may cause illusions. The ethereal, yet grounded, theory of existentialism provides the landscape for a more positively identified pathway which reaches across the separation exists among humans.
“The Next World, I think, might be conceived as a kind of dream-world. When we are asleep, sensory stimuli are cut off, or, at any rate, are prevented from having their normal effects upon our brain centers. But we still manage to have experiences (Price, 501). In this statement by Price, he is describing how powerful our dreams have on our daily life. The dream world that he is proclaiming to be our afterlife does not follow the basic laws of physics, just like the ones we wake up to do not. In Price’s afterlife theory of where the soul goes once the physical body ends, there is no sense of the physical nature of the body. Yet with his theory, we would experience just the same as if it was still intact. That being said, he’s claiming that the soul goes to a parallel world to the experiences we have while we are dreaming. In addition to that, he claims that each person will experience a world of their own as we do already with our own unique dreams. Price claims that this afterlife isn’t a lonely one to the extent of our own physical dreams are today; no one is able to experience the same vivid experiences we have in our own real dreams, yet with Price’s
... it’s just as possible that there’s a possibility that there is an afterlife as there is that there isn’t. He does not consider this problem. This is a very big point one should consider because for a lot of people, the possibility of an afterlife is what makes death a little less scary and shows that it can be a good thing. If there is an afterlife, this means that we never really die. We die in the physical sense that our bodies are no longer functioning, but in a way our consciousness still exists. We are “alive” even though we are dead. Suppose that the concept of immortality is the concept of living sometime, but never dying. Consider a living thing that goes into eternal suspended animation. It never dies, but this sort of immortality is hardly better than death. It is just like living forever, therefore it does not matter on the desirability of eternal life.
In conclusion, life without experience or memory is meaningless. When all freedom is taken away from an
"If we affirm life and live in the present as fully as possible, however, we will not be obsessed with the end of life"(Corey p.153). This is the way of thinking for the existential theorist when it comes to patients who deal with death anxiety. Dr. Yalom dealt with this issue when he did a study on bereavement. He put an ad in the paper that asked for volunteers who would be willing to be interviewed. In order to meet the requirements the people had to have grief in their life that they were unable to overcome. A chapter in Yalom's book titled The Wrong One Died went into detail about a woman named Penny. Penny had lost a daughter four years prior to the interview. When she showed up at the office she told the secretary that she needed to see the Dr. Yalom immediately. Penny's life was a struggle ever since the tragedy of losing her daughter. In explaining the reason for not being able to let it go after such a long time, she mentioned how she felt responsible for horrible death. After a few meetings of therapy Penny came to realize that her daughter was not coming back, and she began to deal with the real issues that were causing her so much pain. She told Dr. Yalom that the way she handled her daughter's death made her feel extremely guilty. So guilty that she couldn't even remember the actual dying process tha...
Briefly, we can conclude by deduction that body, brain, and soul are not sufficient to explain personal identity. Personal identity and immortality will always cause questions to arise from philosophers, as well as other individuals, and although many philosophers may object and disagree, the memory criterion offers the most sufficient explanation.
In the end his argument cannot be true because there is no proven link between the mind and body. There is just the physical body and nothing more; nothing less. Dualism is an idea mainly based on assumption and faith. Although it would be nice to know what happens to people after they die, that is something most people would like to wait to find out.
In the Phaedo Socrates claims that the soul is indeed immortal, that it lives forever and cannot die even after the body has died, thus philosophers spend their lives devaluing themselves from their body. Socrates presents the Theory of Recollection to persuade his fellow philosophers that have convened inside his cell that the soul is immortal. In essence, the recollection argument refers to the act of learning, because the soul is immortal, according to Socrates, then this suggests that when a person is learning something they are actually relearning it, because their soul has existed before they were born. This idea of recollecting knowledge is prominent and is the most convincing argument in proving the existence of immortality through the soul, however, this argument does not suggest that the soul continues to exist after death and lacks clarity regarding what truly happens after a person dies.
Personal identity is more than memory continuum. I agree with Locke that you need memory continuum to be the same person and are necessary in order to exist, but it’s not everything that defines personal identity. However, I don’t think a person is not the same person if they don’t remember certain events. I agree with Hume’s that memory reveals personal identity. Personal identity is composed of bundles of
These premises, both of which are true, support the conclusion of this argument. The first premise states that bodily continuity is required for the function of mental continuity; this is of course true as all mental activity is generated within the brain whose livelihood relies on adequate operation of the body. Additionally, in the second premise it is noted that mental continuity is necessary in defining personal identity. Mental continuity as it relates to personal identity is a combination of memory and consciousness. Memo...
Each philosopher gathers differing views on the theory of personhood. The legal concept of a person initially tries to follow the moral concept of a person. In philosophy, “the genetic definition of personhood precludes the possibility of a person remaining the same person after death. If who you are is made up of a genetic code, then that genetic code dies when the person dies” (Moon Lecture 8). Many of these philosophers believe that each person attains an immortal soul which presumes the possibility of an afterlife.