What happen after death ?

[mushroomsoup]

I don't know exactly, but life is an illusion designed to keep your mind occupied while you are digested by God.

 

[Pestilence]

I don't know exactly, but life is an illusion designed to keep your mind occupied while you are digested by God.

This might actually be the greatest theory ever.

 

[bhavv]

God must take a really really long time to digest stuff lol.

 

[Spook187]

Well, that can be true, if you consider decomposition and recycling of the bodies energy back into the ecosystem to be a better cause



Scientific evidence for that please? The personality and soul are not forms of detectable energy, all the energy that an organic body does contain decomposes and recycles back into the ecosystem.

At the end of the day when we all cease to exsist,and everything we see around us will be back to where we all started from=space dust,that will happen.

 

[Biohazard]

The entire post is, naturally, "my opinion", as could only be expected in such a loaded question as the topic.

That is very true; I felt I had to say it to you though. Nothing wrong with dying with an open mind. I think that's one benefit religion has actually brought segments of humanity..

 

[Pestilence]

That is very true; I felt I had to say it to you though. Nothing wrong with dying with an open mind. I think that's one benefit religion has actually brought segments of humanity..

To be fair, while I may be entirely atheist, I do entertain the idea that should I be wrong any loving God would be fully understanding upon my death.

In terms of living my life, I don't need religion to tell me what's right and wrong. I can tell that for myself.

EDIT: In fact, in my experience I've found much more of the "religious" people to be FAR more intolerable and less accommodating (sp? I'm drunk; bad writer!) than myself.

 

[Castiel]

Because philosophy and silly opinions like Dr Shulman's are purely daft thats why.

The massive amount of brain energy required for consciousness is, believe it or not, created by a working brain. When the brain stops working, the energy disappears, just like pulling the plug out of your PC.

So you disagree that the Law of Conservation of Energy is valid then?

Against all the scientific consensus to the contrary.

Dr Shulman is hardly a man of silly opinions.

http://www.mbb.yale.edu/faculty/pages/shulman.html

You said in another post that the PC still has 'potential energy'. But that isnt the case with the brain, because after it is dead it is no longer working, hence it cannot reform your consciousness.

I did not say it could reform your conciousness, all I said was that you should consider the law of energy conservation when you state categorically when conciousness ceases and that that energy within a living brain transforms into another state and we have no idea what that state is, we can theorize it changes to heat energy or whatever, but it isn't destroyed, it doesn't simply cease to exist, it ceases to exist in that particular form.

And a dead brain does have potential energy btw, quite a lot in fact compared to other areas of the body.

If you want to research or learn about consciousness, then I would strongly suggest that you study Neuroscience instead and learn about how the brain and its nervous functions and impulses actually work.

Heres a book that I strongly suggest you pick up and read:

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=8595&ttype=2

Sure, you obviously haven't actually read that book, otherwise you would know that a couple of the papers within it deal with the philosophical side of conciousness, that is the same philosophy that you call daft btw.

You simply pulled that book out of googling "Conciousness" or something, hoping it supported your theory....

 

[Biohazard]

You simply pulled that book out of googling "Conciousness" or something, hoping it supported your theory....

I cba actually reading the whole argument & source (sorry) so I'll take your word, but isn't that absolutely priceless when people do that?

 

[loltim]

Not sure what to believe. I'm not at all religious, but I find it really hard to believe it's just blackness when you die, just like being asleep, but for an infinite amount of time... can't grasp it

 

[ChrisJSY]

Believe what you want, you can't possibly know.

 

[Castiel]

I cba actually reading the whole argument & source (sorry) so I'll take your word, but isn't that absolutely priceless when people do that?

I wouldnt bother reading it tbh, it is the usual open v closed mindedness argument. Frankly I dont why I keep getting involved in such nonsense.

 

[Biohazard]

I wouldnt bother reading it tbh, it is the usual open v closed mindedness argument. Frankly I dont why I keep getting involved in such nonsense.

You've got a problem man. Seek help.

If you had joined same time as me, and posting at 32 odd posts per day like I think it was the last time I looked then you'd be sitting next to me with circa 100,000 posts.

You are approaching the life/wife losing territory

 

[Castiel]

You've got a problem man. Seek help.

If you had joined same time as me, and posting at 32 odd posts per day like I think it was the last time I looked then you'd be sitting next to me with circa 100,000 posts.

You are approaching the life/wife losing territory

Haha, I wouldnt worry about that, I do most of my posting at work in between doing workstuff (like now) or when the wife isnt about or asleep anyway.

I'll get bored eventually and then my DP tally will drop off a bit.

 

[Biohazard]

I'll get bored eventually and then my DP tally will drop off a bit.

Make you a touch self conscious there?

Was only playing, but you've hammered that through scarily quick.

 

[Castiel]

Make you a touch self conscious there?

Was only playing, but you've hammered that through scarily quick.

You're right though, I spend too much time on the interwebz.

The only reason I got through so many posts is because I'm an argumentative old sod.

 

[Cosimo]

You simply pulled that book out of googling "Conciousness" or something, hoping it supported your theory....

Sounds familiar .....

 

[Amp34]

not pysically, emotionally you're pesonaility soul what you want to call it is going to be used for something else, to its like the sun makes food right , we eat that food which is coverted to energy , that energy is not just how long you can go at work or something , its energy building up thats released when you die, i am pritty sure of this and there is a reason for it.

No that energy you build up over your lifetime is either converted into another energy during life (kinetic/heat) or converted by the creatures that eat you once you're dead.

Bhavy did you read the link Castiel posted? It's actually a pretty normal article about standard science (well that's how I read it), doesn't say anything about what happens after death, no idea where castiels point came from, certainly not the article.

 

[Amp34]

not pysically, emotionally you're pesonaility soul what you want to call it is going to be used for something else, to its like the sun makes food right , we eat that food which is coverted to energy , that energy is not just how long you can go at work or something , its energy building up thats released when you die, i am pritty sure of this and there is a reason for it.

So you disagree that the Law of Conservation of Energy is valid then?

Against all the scientific consensus to the contrary.

Dr Shulman is hardly a man of silly opinions.

http://www.mbb.yale.edu/faculty/pages/shulman.html




I did not say it could reform your conciousness, all I said was that you should consider the law of energy conservation when you state categorically when conciousness ceases and that that energy within a living brain transforms into another state and we have no idea what that state is, we can theorize it changes to heat energy or whatever, but it isn't destroyed, it doesn't simply cease to exist, it ceases to exist in that particular form.

And a dead brain does have potential energy btw, quite a lot in fact compared to other areas of the body.





Sure, you obviously haven't actually read that book, otherwise you would know that a couple of the papers within it deal with the philosophical side of conciousness, that is the same philosophy that you call daft btw.

You simply pulled that book out of googling "Conciousness" or something, hoping it supported your theory....

So you suggest that the energy in the brain after death may go somewhere else, ie a soul? Yet does that mean the potential energy in a computer after it is switched off is also a soul? What about the potential energy of a spade that has been put down? Or a plant that has been chopped down? I think your argument is the usual "humans are better" argument that a large amount of religious (and non religious) people appear to have. We are different and may have souls, yet other things can't possibly.

 

[bhavv]

So you disagree that the Law of Conservation of Energy is valid then?

Against all the scientific consensus to the contrary.

Dr Shulman is hardly a man of silly opinions.

http://www.mbb.yale.edu/faculty/pages/shulman.html

I did not say it could reform your conciousness, all I said was that you should consider the law of energy conservation when you state categorically when conciousness ceases and that that energy within a living brain transforms into another state and we have no idea what that state is, we can theorize it changes to heat energy or whatever, but it isn't destroyed, it doesn't simply cease to exist, it ceases to exist in that particular form.

And a dead brain does have potential energy btw, quite a lot in fact compared to other areas of the body.

Sure, you obviously haven't actually read that book, otherwise you would know that a couple of the papers within it deal with the philosophical side of conciousness, that is the same philosophy that you call daft btw.

You simply pulled that book out of googling "Conciousness" or something, hoping it supported your theory....

The law of conservation of energy is not invalidated by what I stated - Organic life decomposes after death, and all the energy stored within is returned to the ecosystem.

Of course dead brains have potential energy, the energy that is stored within the molecular mass that then decomposes, or can even be burnt. Once fully decomposed / burnt / cremated and no longer in existance, all of that energy is gone / recycled back into the ecosystem.

Also, as for your links on that doctor, just because he is a doctor doesnt mean that everything that he states and believes in is supported by science. Human consciousness surviving after death is definitely not supported in any area of science, regardless of how many quackjob theorists try and use science to support such a pseudoscientific claim.

Yes I pulled that book from google, but I have studied neuroscience up to degree level and nowhere does the scientific side touch on any area of consciousness after death. This is a philosophical belief that comes from, and is taught outside of science classes.

Just because a text book also covers any philosophic areas, which text books should do btw, it doesnt mean that the science or the empirical evidence also contained within actually supports those ideas.

Bhavy did you read the link Castiel posted? It's actually a pretty normal article about standard science (well that's how I read it), doesn't say anything about what happens after death, no idea where castiels point came from, certainly not the article.

Castiel will simply look for anyone with Dr in their name to support any irrational and deeply held religious beliefs that he possesses. Even if the science doesnt agree with him, which it clearly doesnt on this issue, he will still find some way of supporting his illogical arguments from some area of science, effectively presenting us with pseudoscientific claims.

I dont need to read anything that Castiel posts on this topic, I have studied Neuroscience and know that science does not support his claim of human consciousness surviving after death. Of course he will disagree and continue pulling up more links with random philosophies, doctors, and even try to skew scientific theories as he did with the law of conservation of energy away from what they actually teach to try and support his religious / theological beliefs.

It is always fun to see him do that though, so I will simply keep on giving him the fuel to carry on with what he does best.

EDIT: Are there any studies of deaths within scanners so we can actually see how brain activity reacts to death itself. I'm sure I remember reading something about it taking minutes/hours for the brain to shut down more? That would be a far more pertinent study to look at and perhaps look at how the brain uses up the energy it has left after death.

I have a better question to ask to Castiel - How does the energy stored within the brain, or as he theorizes within human consciousness survive after the brain has been cremated?

Interesting then that Robert Shulman said: "You can think of consciousness not as a property of the brain, but of the person."

in his paper cited below, he says that conciousness needs massive amounts of brain energy, yet the amount of energy used to do tasks when reacting to stimuli is minute in comparison.

So when the body dies, what happens to all this energy that supports conciousness?

I have no idea, Dr Shulman has no idea, generations of philosophers have no idea, yet you are so absolutely sure that the energy doesn't change or transform into another state, it simply ceases, which seems to be against the laws of energy conservation, why?

http://www.physorg.com/news164337334.html

OMG did you even read or understand that link?

High levels of brain energy are required to maintain consciousness

Well durr? Isnt that exactly what I am saying and you are not? You are theorizing that human consciousness survives after the brain stops working, which this article is actually saying is impossible.

There are two problems with such an approach, said Robert G. Shulman, Sterling Professor Emeritus of molecular biophysics and biochemistry at Yale and lead author of the paper, to be published this week in the online edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. First, functional magnetic resonance imaging has shown that many areas of the brain, not just one or two, are recruited during tasks such as memory tests and are scant help in studying the state of being conscious. Second, the amount of energy used in such tasks is minute, about one percent of baseline energy available to the brain.

"Neuroimaging has been looking at the tip of the iceberg," Shulman said. "We looked at the rest of the iceberg."

Oh wow, so Robert Shulman is actually a good and decent scientist whose name you pretty much completely ruin by trying to somehow attribute this to human consciousness being able to survive after death? Please describe to me how you managed to link this doctor to your pseudoscientific theories, when all he writes and states are studies based on living and functional brains, not dead ones?

Of course I take back that I thought he was a pseudoscience quackjob, nothing that he actually says supports any of your beliefs.

What is the other 99 percent of energy consumption doing?

Shulman and colleagues have proposed that it is needed to maintain a person in a state of consciousness..... "What we propose is that a conscious person requires a high level of brain energy," Shulman said.

This means that 99% of the energy that the brain uses is required to maintain consciousness. When that energy is 'switched off', I.E brain death, the consciousness is lost. Lolcastiel.

Sure, you obviously haven't actually read that book, otherwise you would know that a couple of the papers within it deal with the philosophical side of conciousness, that is the same philosophy that you call daft btw.

Likewise, you didnt even read the article you posted, or anything written by Dr Shulman, or would know that what he teaches says that consciousness cannot survive after the brain dies, which I can guarantee you that the text book I linked too would also teach.

 

[Castiel]

Lol Bhavv, doesnt understand what I said, so invents something else. I haven't made a single religious statement in this thread, neither do I have any religious beliefs whatsoever.

I was merely pointing out that the energy in our brains far exceeds that required for the tasks it does, I cited the Shulman paper because that illustrates what that conciousness cannot be simply imaged or quantified as you seem to think it can.

If you read the first post I made, you might actually see that much of what you say I think is completely fabricated by yourself in some ego trip.

Oh yeah, studied neuroscience at degree level?

Hmmmmmm.