Philosophy Now Forum

From what I understand of peoples' ideas of themselves and their place in the world, I gather many, if not most, tend to see themselves as something more than an organism existing in the physical world. That is, I think people imagine themselves to have a soul or at the least some essential essence that transcends the physical. That permits them to believe in meaning to their life, of some underlying connection with something greater and of an existence after death.

Science meanwhile has increasingly moved towards a view that consciousness is simply a function of the brain. Some current theories for example posit that our brains construct a model of experience to help the organism to plan and direct its behaviours - consciousness is simply an internal model of processing. In these theories, there is no essence, no essential being, in fact consciousness arises moment by moment in response to stimulus.

Imagine then if it were clearly shown, with no room for doubt, that one does not exist as a meaningful entity, that self and consciousness are illusions if you will, created by the brain to manage the organism's state, and that free will does not exist.

In other words, you are just an organism doing what it is that organisms do pursuing no greater purpose than to exist. Religion immediately has no basis. There is no God, no Heaven, no ultimate survival after death. There is not, in a real sense, even a "you".

How would the world deal with this?

Now, this is just a thought experiment and I am not asking you to argue whether this notion of consciousness could be right or wrong, I simply pose the question. How would humanity deal with learning it has no essential being separate from the functioning of a brain?

Antinatalism. Of course I keep harping on this, but existence is not necessary for something that doesn't exist, and doesn't miss it.

As a self-directing animal livin' in an amoral universe: I'm havin' a grand time of it.

Meaning? I don't need no stinkin' meaning.

Seems to me: all you gotta worry about is how clearly you 'see', how well you 'comprehend', and how successfully you 'navigate'.

Example: if you know messin' with hornets is gonna get you stung, and you respond accordingly (avoiding hornets, or, being ready with the flamethrower), then you're doin' pretty good. If, on the other hand, you screw around with hornets, get stung, and then kvetch about the 'unfairness' of it, you're a pussy, are profoundly disconnected from reality, and, probably, don't deserve to live.

You may be right henry quirk, but it seems to me that isn't enough for an awful lot of people. Watching my Facebook feed shows me that rather clearly. This matter was illustrated to me recently in a discussion with a friend wherein I posed the question in slightly different form. I asked her what she thought she was and we talked about science and mind and self and although she agreed that it is the brain that gives rise to conscious experience she was unshakable in the belief that there is more than that. She didn't quite know what but she felt there simply had to be some greater connection or meaning, else why bother to be alive.

That got me wondering - if people seem to need some kind of belief in a 'substance' that is them, that there is a God, and an afterlife, how would people react if they knew for sure that none of that is true? It does look like science may lead us to that conclusion. From what I've seen there are a few people on forums like this that agree with that notion, but plenty of others that do not. However these forums aren't really representative I would guess, so the average person in the street... what would they feel and think were they to learn that they don't exist in the form they've always believed?

Just call me Henry.

The notion of being a self-directing animal livin' in an amoral world is friggin' scary to a great many folks. Most people want a safety net (Heaven, an infallibly- arbitrated morality, etc.). To discover, in an absolute way, that each is on his or her own, would lead to global despair.

Knowing that one is a finite, material, event inside of a finite, material, event would lead to a suicide epidemic.

By the way: I don't blame folks for believing in a moral dimension, or a divine arbiter, or an in-dwelling, immortal spirit...if I weren't an anarchistic sociopath I'd probably be right there with 'em...

A good deal of how folks would respond would depend on how the news was presented.

Drop it on every one's lap like a dollop of bird crap, and watch folks panic (suicide!).

Dole the information out, bit by bit, over an extended period, and folks might acclimate (with lots of booze, and drugs, and sex with far fewer bullets to the temple).

And, of course, some folks will never give up (notions of) the moral dimension, the divine arbiter, the in-dwelling, immortal spirit, no matter the evidence to the contrary.

henry quirk wrote:And, of course, some folks will never give up (notions of) the moral dimension, the divine arbiter, the in-dwelling, immortal spirit, no matter the evidence to the contrary.

The problem is that there is little or no evidence to the contrary, just a lack of evidence that most cling to as evidence of nonexistence. However for a few there is positive evidence for the existence of God, but I understand that the evidence was just for me, so I don't attempt to push my belief onto others, when the time is right they will get whatever proof they need, if they will accept it.