On Apr 26, 6:58 pm, graytiger <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 14 mrt, 17:49, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 'The concept of an afterlife is a perfectly reasonable thing to be > > > able > > > to imagine' > > > > It is not. There is no strongly justified argument to suppose that > > > aynthing 'mind' like can stay in existence when the brain stops > > > functioning. > > > But still, you can easily see how and why it makes sense that this > > idea is an anthropological universal. >
> because people don't like the idea of dying. But that doesn't prove a > thing. It proves my point - that it is a perfectly reasonable thing to be able to imagine. > So it is not really reasonable in the sense of being well > justified. I didn't say that it was. I'm comparing the rather obviously wishful logic of an afterlife myth with the utterly unfathomable existence of 'feeling' or 'awareness'. > People can have many needs that are answered by certain > beliefs, but that doesn't make these beliefs reasonable. Of course, but that doesn't make it hard to believe that the belief itself exists as a belief. Feeling, however, is not imaginable at all. Try it. Try imagining a whole new way to feel. A new primary color, an orthogonal pain equivalent, music poetry prose and...X. Not the same thing as beliefs being not well justified. I can easily imagine cultures with plausible taboos about bodily functions or animals, etc. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
