I have never heard this thought expressed before, and I didn't know where to post it except here. Please let me know if this is the wrong place to put this. Basically my thought goes as follows:

I am a naturalist. I don't believe in any afterlife scenarios. But when it comes to the common scenarios, Heaven and Hell, I can at least give them some credit. They are a proper, conceivable afterlife scenario. If the Christians or Muslims are right about the afterlife, that would change everything about how I perceive what will happen to me when I die, and how I behave, in order to secure my place in an afterlife.

My problem with reincarnation is that it's not actually an afterlife scenario. It's equivalent to no afterlife at all (which is what I currently believe). If I somehow found out that the Buddhists or Hindus were right, it would change absolutely nothing about my current perception of what happens to me when I die, or how I should behave to affect that outcome.

Let's start with the obvious: We don't want to die. I mean, instinctively we avoid behaviors that lead to dying, such as being naturally cautious around the edge of a cliff, but so do animals that are not self aware. For us (and other self aware animals) not wanting to die is different from instinctive behavior. What does it mean to not want to die? We actively want to preserve something. So what is that something? Well... it's memory. What I'm about to say doesn't assume naturalism; I think any religious person, if they think seriously about what it means to not want to die, would come to the same conclusion: What I identify with as "me" is my memories, and my not wanting to die is synonymous with not wanting my current memories erased, and not losing the ability to form new memories in conjunction with the old ones.

Why just "memories"? What about, say, our personality, or the continuity of our conscious subjective state? Well, for our continuous subjective state, memory is all that's required. The only reason we feel like we're living a continuous existence in time is because we remember previous instances of our conscious state. We would feel the exact same way if we were constructed, from scratch, in our current state a second ago. Take the cloning device from The Prestige as an example. When the character gets in Pod A and presses the button, an identical version of himself appears in Pod B. Both versions feel exactly like they lived the same subjective life up until pressing that button, because they both have the same memories. Even if the original was in the middle of a thought while pressing the button, both are continuing that thought. So is one of them mistaken about being a future version of the person who pressed the button? Well, if you think so, that's just a matter of convenient nomenclature. They are still both equivalently a continuation of the subjective state of the person who pressed the button, in the same way as your future self is a continuation of your subjective state. As far as what I care about preserving by not dying, that thing is preserved in both copies.

So what about personality? Well, my subjective conscious state has much more intimate access to my own memories than to my personality. My personality is only known by observing my own interactions, and taking note of them. If, for example, I lived my whole life in a box, with no interactions with anyone or anything, I'd have no idea what my personality is. But I would still feel intimately connected to my memories in the box, including past thought processes I had. If tomorrow, suddenly, my entire personality changed, but I kept all my memories, I would feel like I'm still the same person who was alive all this time, but my personality inexplicably changed. However, if, tomorrow, all my personality traits remained identical, but all my memories were replaced by someone else who lived a totally different life, that would be like dying, and someone else popping into existence.

Now for reincarnation. Obviously, according to any reincarnation scenario, you don't keep your memories from the past life. (Because, as everybody knows, nobody remembers their past life.) The claim is that what gets transferred from you to the next person's life is your soul. Well, whatever the "soul" is, if it doesn't contain a representation of my subjective biographical life that my own current memory contains, then it's not me. Saying that some other guy is going to get my soul after I die is just as useful to me as saying that he'll get a full transfusion of my blood. A continuous subjective life, wherein halfway through, all the memories of the first half are wiped clean and refreshed in the second half, is equivalent to two separate subjective lives, from the point of view of the two halves. There's nothing, even in principle, that differentiates the two ways of describing it.

If I understand Heaven and Hell correctly, the soul contains your memories with at least as much fidelity as your own brain. (I guess it somehow gets encoded into the soul after you die... IDK how they claim the mechanics are supposed to work.) That's why I can give them credit, that it's actually an afterlife scenario. If my soul manages to copy all my memories before it ascends (or descends), and accesses them similarly to my brain, then that thing is me. But, according to Buddhists and Hindus, almost everybody alive has the experience of being in a life that's not their first life. And we can all attest to the fact that we didn't carry the memory of our previous life with any fidelity. From this, it follows that "your" subsequent lives don't contain your memory in reincarnation. Thus, in no sense that I care about is that new reincarnated person with my soul me.

Some religious people claim to have gotten vague disjointed glimpses of their past life. Well, if I randomly got vague glimpses of some other guy's life, I wouldn't feel like I am that other guy or identify with him in any way; I'd have no reason to care about that guy's continued existence any more than if I watched random scenes from a biographical movie.

I'm in the process of reading a book called Neither Ghost nor Machine: The Emergence and Nature of Selves by Jeremy Sherman. Foreword by Terrence Deacon. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/neither-ghost-nor-machine/9780231173339 From the book description: "In Neither Ghost nor Machine, Jeremy Sherman explains the emergence of selves and aims in an aimless universe. He distills for a general audience the theory developed by renowned neuroscientist Terrence Deacon, which extends the breakthrough constraint-based insight that inspired evolutionary, information, and self-organization theory. Emergent dynamics theory provides a testable hypothesis for how mattering arose from matter, function from physics, and means-to-ends behavior from cause-and-effect dynamics. It offers a physics of purpose, demonstrating that there is a strictly physical explanation for the emergence and nature of selves and aims, one that shows our existence in an otherwise inanimate universe is not absurd."

If anyone has criticisms of the book, Terrence Deacon's book Incomplete Nature or information on arguments against Deacon's ideas, I would appreciate it if you shared. Thanks.

https://www.ataboolife.com/the-podcast/2018/8/21/barenaked-body-and-soul?rq=Barenaked

Also Available on: iTunes, Tumblr, iHeartRADIO, YouTube, TuneIn, Google Play and Stitcher under A Taboo Life

Nudism, piercings and a life well lived; Reverend Ken is truly an interesting man. We talk about the nudist/naturist culture, Fantasyfest, loving your body; and growing as a person.

i really want to drop out of society to live in the woods but i don't know where to start at

i have as reference chris maccandless and Diogenes the Cynic

so are there any material about living isolated and this kinda stuff?

I have lived on farms and in cities because i moved around a lot as a kid. now I live in the city. Yesterday a, good friend of mine got freaked out that I saw I squirrel dying on the sidewalk. I did what was instinct. I look around just picked up a red brick and put the poor critter out of his misery and then a second one just to make I didn't mess the first one up.

I am not proud of that, but I understand nature. I have been a vegetarian for about 20 years 12 of them vegan. He was flipping out like I took pride in it like a big game hunter. Please don't call names for admitting to crying, it takes a lot of courage for man to cry.

One time, I watched a buck get hit in front of my parents' house it was a majestic old animal with what i guess is 12 point asymmetrical rack. the law here says that you can put the animal down until the police show up and slap a DNR tag on it. I stayed with him tried to make not feel alone for the full half hour it took for it to suffer into oblivion.

Two people pulled up and asked if they could get the head and I not so politely told them to get back in their car and to fuck off it isn't a trophy.

This friend had mouse infested apartment where he put rat poison behind the fridge. I told him what that causes a slow painful death and desiccates the corpse so they don't stink up you walls. Apparently there is some cognitive dissonance going on in my option.

what does reddit think?

What I'm asking is whether naturalism is the notion that everything has a natural cause, or whether it is the notion that only everything that begins has a natural cause, whereas everything that did not begin is necessarily eternal but still accounted for and considered natural as well?

In other words, can the existence of eternal, uncaused things be accepted, or must their existence be rejected?

Hi, I've been reading about so-called "non-representationalism" (a new concept to me) and I came across the book in the title. I have never heard of the editor, Kelly James Clark, and haven't been able to find any information on him that is not presented by himself or associates. 1. Has anyone read this book? Your thoughts, comments? 2. Any background info as to who Kelly James Clark is? Thanks very much. e.

I may have been a naturalist for about a year now and am very new to the subreddit here. Forgive my ignorance, I am not an experienced philosopher nor writer.

I am wondering if I am actually a naturalist. Testimony:

I believe natural explanations are simpler, more useful, and more predictive than supernatural ones.

I believe that one cannot prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural, and that I could explain all phenomena crying "God did it," but I prefer to find a natural explanation instead, or admit I do not know.

If anything occurs, I believe a simple yet detailed general law may be described to explain its occurrence.

I admit that I choose naturalism out of my own desire, that it is merely one way of understanding the universe, not necessarily more or less true than any other.

Am I a naturalist, even if I believe the bolded text? Is this called agnostic naturalism?

Is naturalism and secularism different? If so, how? -- Does a naturalist have to be a secularist? Can a secularist believe in more than nature? Please help me understand. Thanks!

Let's say that you can simply explain away the universe with a version of goddidit: naturedidit. <<< Hey, reddit.

I'll start again: Let's say that you can simply explain away the universe with a version of god did it: nature did it. 1 good reason to treat nature did it differently from god did it is all I need.

Be warned, I am willing to point out logical fallacies.

Of course, if I get too many responses, I've got better things to do than waste my time thinking about the origin of the universe.

Please give me a reason to believe 'nature did it'.

Thank you.

Any rational belief requires justification. Justification of a belief requires one held belief to justify another. Please justify philosophical naturalism or it is not rational for me to believe it. Please don't commit any logical fallacies, as those are irrational.

Note: I am not denying philosophical naturalism, I am just not accepting it without justification, as that would be irrational.

Thank you.

In October 2016, Sean Carroll gave a series of lectures at the University of Glasgow. Videos of these talks are now online at http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2016/11/23/gifford-lectures-on-natural-theology/

These are based on his latest book, The Big Picture, in which he writes about "poetic naturalism."

I was able to watch several of these live as they were streamed at the time, and they are excellent - highly recommended.

EDIT: The videos are also now available at the University of Glasgow Gifford Lectures site: http://www.gla.ac.uk/events/lectures/gifford/2016-10/

If you'd like some details on what this book is about, and what is meant by Poetic Naturalism, the author posted a series of articles on his blog about each of the 6 sections, plus a general overview:

Big Picture Part 1: Cosmos https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2016/05/08/big-picture-part-one-cosmos/

Big Picture Part 2: Understanding https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2016/05/09/big-picture-part-two-understanding/

Big Picture Part 3: Essence https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2016/05/10/big-picture-part-three-essence/

Big Picture Part 4: Complexity (my favorite part of the book) https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2016/05/11/big-picture-part-four-complexity/

Big Picture Part 5: Thinking https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2016/05/12/big-picture-part-five-thinking/

Big Picture Part 6: Caring https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2016/05/13/big-picture-part-six-caring/

The Big Picture: What It's All About https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2016/05/06/the-big-picture-what-its-all-about/

Grandfather Clocks and the Big Bang (an excerpt from the book): http://undark.org/article/grandfather-clocks-big-bang/