A question for afterlife deniers (Hypothetical)

[Strumgewehr]

First off, I'm not religious nor do I believe in any "higher power". However I do believe there is high possibility of some form of afterlife (it could be any form of life, not necessarily a human life).

Note: The question assumes you believe that afterlife and before life are the same state i.e. nothingness or non-existence. If you don't, this question is not for you.

So, here's the question. Let's suppose we took a screenshot of your current brain and all it's functionality. Let's call the screenshot brain "Brain S". Now since the you deny afterlife, "Brain S" also denies it because your brain and "Brain S" are identical in functionality. Now, lets take the "Brain S" back in time, a year before you were born, to be exact. At this time if we were to ask the "Brain S" if it believed in afterlife, it would obviously say "no" (because your current brain and "Brain S are identical so will their response be).

But of course "Brain S" would be proven will wrong after a year. That implies that the current you are also wrong because you and "Brain S" are identical, as mentioned before.

 

[JustAboutDone]

My head is spinning. I need a twix or something. I'm glad I believe in an afterlife :-)

 

[Strumgewehr]

My head is spinning. I need a twix or something. I'm glad I believe in an afterlife :-)

I'm sorry LOL.

 

[KiraLittleOwl]

Truely interesting thought experiment. I would like to know what they have to say about it on r/philosophy.
I think your reasoning imply that brain S can travel back in time and therefore it exists before birth. If it's not, who will answer to your question?

 

[Redt2go]

First off, I'm not religious nor do I believe in any "higher power". However I do believe there is high possibility of some form of afterlife (it could be any form of life, not necessarily a human life).

Note: The question assumes you believe that afterlife and before life are the same state i.e. nothingness or non-existence. If you don't, this question is not for you.

So, here's the question. Let's suppose we took a screenshot of your current brain and all it's functionality. Let's call the screenshot brain "Brain S". Now since the you deny afterlife, "Brain S" also denies it because your brain and "Brain S" are identical in functionality. Now, lets take the "Brain S" back in time, a year before you were born, to be exact. At this time if we were to ask the "Brain S" if it believed in afterlife, it would obviously say "no" (because your current brain and "Brain S are identical so will their response be).

But of course "Brain S" would be proven will wrong after a year. That implies that the current you are also wrong because you and "Brain S" are identical, as mentioned before.

The brain S theory makes no sense... You can't be the same person you were before you were born.. you exist as a sum total of your experiences

 

[Iman]

That doesn't make any sense to me.
Because it still doesn't proof that afterlife exists.
Once "Brain S" for example runs out of energie/blood/oxygen, it ceases to function just the same.

 

[Thisisme373]

This theory doesn't make sense.

 

[Strumgewehr]

Truely interesting thought experiment. I would like to know what they have to say about it on r/philosophy.
I think your reasoning imply that brain S can travel back in time and therefore it exists before birth. If it's not, who will answer to your question?

The brain S is a Screenshot. It will give a valid response will any time we want. So the time is Irrelevant. Just like how a genuine photo of a murder is a valid evidence after 10 years and can also serve as valid predictor if found before the event.

 

[JohnDoe1]

So many logical fallacies....A same person's brain can have two opposite worldviews...

 

[Othermind]

First off, I'm not religious nor do I believe in any "higher power". However I do believe there is high possibility of some form of afterlife (it could be any form of life, not necessarily a human life).

Note: The question assumes you believe that afterlife and before life are the same state i.e. nothingness or non-existence. If you don't, this question is not for you.

So, here's the question. Let's suppose we took a screenshot of your current brain and all it's functionality. Let's call the screenshot brain "Brain S". Now since the you deny afterlife, "Brain S" also denies it because your brain and "Brain S" are identical in functionality. Now, lets take the "Brain S" back in time, a year before you were born, to be exact. At this time if we were to ask the "Brain S" if it believed in afterlife, it would obviously say "no" (because your current brain and "Brain S are identical so will their response be).

But of course "Brain S" would be proven will wrong after a year. That implies that the current you are also wrong because you and "Brain S" are identical, as mentioned before.

Circular logic.
You assume there is an afterlife as proof of the existence of the afterlife itself.

 

[brighter]

My head is spinning. I need a twix or something. I'm glad I believe in an afterlife :-)

lol I think I might need to book you in for a chocolate rehab or something you're sliding into addiction. If only all the great mysteries of the world could be solved with a chocolate bar.

 

[Strumgewehr]

That doesn't make any sense to me.
Because it still doesn't proof that afterlife exists.
Once "Brain S" for example runs out of energie/blood/oxygen, it ceases to function just the same.

That's why it is a screenshot of the brain's function, A blueprint if you will. You are saying a DNA information on a computer won't be able to predict your characteristics because it is not organic.

 

[Redt2go]

I believe in the afterlife but the basis and your entire argument is weak...

 

[Strumgewehr]

Circular logic.
You assume there is an afterlife as proof of the existence of the afterlife itself.

You might be right. Care to elaborate just a little bit more? the second part.

 

[Othermind]

You might be right. Care to elaborate just a little bit more? the second part.

What is there to elaborate? You assume there is a state in which a duplicate of our mind can exist for which our current life would function as the afterlife. Ergo, you're saying there is an afterlife because there is an afterlife.

 

[Strumgewehr]

So many logical fallacies....A same person's brain can have two opposite worldviews...

I've seen the video before. If you read my title again I've made it clear that this question is for those who are certain that there is no afterlife as their final answer. If they arrive to this conclusion by one brain or two, by right or the left is irrelevant.

 

[Strumgewehr]

What is there to elaborate? You assume there is a state in which a duplicate of our mind can exist for which our current life would function as the afterlife. Ergo, you're saying there is an afterlife because there is an afterlife.

I do not believe there could be an existence of a duplicate of our brain. Following reply was originally for someone else but I can apply it here as well. The brain S is a Screenshot. It will give a valid response will any time we want. So the time is Irrelevant. Just like how a genuine photo of a murder is a valid evidence after 10 years and can also serve as valid predictor if found before the event. It doesn't matter at which point of time it was found and seen. The information it carries will always be the same and vaild. That is, X killed Y.

 

[Iman]

That's why it is a screenshot of the brain's function, A blueprint if you will. You are saying a DNA information on a computer won't be able to predict your characteristics because it is not organic.

I still don't get it.
You said "Brain S" will be proven wrong after one year. Because it failed to predict what?
The birth of the original brain?

 

[Strumgewehr]

I still don't get it.
You said "Brain S" will be proven wrong after one year. Because it failed to predict what?
The birth of the original brain?

Yes, it didn't believe in afterlife. We have agreed that "nothingness" the state beforebirth = the state afterdeath (see note in OP). By this condition the time a year before birth can be considered as death. Now that he is born a year later of his death, the life can be considered as afterlife. This demonstrates that afterlife indeed occurred, proving his prediction wrong.

 

[Strumgewehr]

Circular logic.
You assume there is an afterlife as proof of the existence of the afterlife itself.

I do not assume there is an Afterlife. Mine is a If-then logic.

 

[KiraLittleOwl]

The brain S is a Screenshot. It will give a valid response will any time we want. So the time is Irrelevant. Just like how a genuine photo of a murder is a valid evidence after 10 years and can also serve as valid predictor if found before the event.

Well it's getting complicated
If it is a copy/screenshot of a brain, then it's not the original and never will be born and if it never will be born it is right that there's no afterlife for it.
Original brain S can't exist before it was born.

 

[Strumgewehr]

Well it's getting complicated
If it is a copy/screenshot of a brain, then it's not the original and never will be born and if it never will be born it is right that there's no afterlife for it.
Original brain S can't exist before it was born.

I agree it can't. But this is a IF question. That's what I put a "Hypothetical" tag on my title. IF we were to find miss Jessica's fingerprint on the gun would it prove that she shot the thief?

 

[Iman]

Yes, it didn't believe in afterlife. We have agreed that "nothingness" the state beforebirth = the state afterdeath (see note in OP). By this condition the time a year before birth can be considered as death. Now that he is born a year later of his death, the life can be considered as afterlife. This demonstrates that afterlife indeed occurred, proving his prediction wrong.

To me that sounds like every baby that gets born is prove of an afterlife
I mean once you bring back "Brain S" one year before the birth, "Brain S" becomes like an onlooker; a whole different thing to the original.

 

[Strumgewehr]

To me that sounds like every baby that gets born is prove of an afterlife

Exactly my point. If it happened once, who's to say it won't happen ever again?

 

[Iman]

Exactly my point. If it happened once, who's to say it won't happen ever again?

1+1=2
And us being born is basically a sperm cell+nutrients+2+3+4... adding more and more until we die.
I still don't see that as proof of an afterlife.

 

[KiraLittleOwl]

Exactly my point. If it happened once, who's to say it won't happen ever again?

What happened?
We say afterlife, not after nonexistance.
Now you are trying to prove afterlife from the point that nothingness can turn into existence but you need to prove that existence can turn into existence.

 

[thatguyakira123]

Except the brain itself is concieved within the womb. Before that we were sperm and even then so before that we were nothing. So either way you take it, our aweness comes after we were created, be it the first instance after we were created as sperm or after when a brain was made up for us.

So no. There is no afterlife and BrainS would be right. I want there to be one, unrealted to any of the relegious bullshit, but reality is unkind. We will become nothing and honestly that's ok.

 

[Othermind]

I do not believe there could be an existence of a duplicate of our brain. Following reply was originally for someone else but I can apply it here as well. The brain S is a Screenshot. It will give a valid response will any time we want. So the time is Irrelevant. Just like how a genuine photo of a murder is a valid evidence after 10 years and can also serve as valid predictor if found before the event. It doesn't matter at which point of time it was found and seen. The information it carries will always be the same and vaild. That is, X killed Y.

Dude, my point flew entirely over your head and you're not making any sense.

 

[Exile]

I've heard Mormons arguing something like this and it didn't make sense then either.

 

[Lost my shadow]

LOL! I am glad I do not have brain S. I believe in an afterlife.