"You live, you die end of. " You obviously swept death under the carpet with that comment. The topic warrants more thought than that. If you exist now and die, do you think that's it darkness, infinite nothing? Because it adds the question was that not the same state before you were born. If you exist, you will always exist in some form. As its the only fundamental quality you have.
LIfe After Death
- Thread starter maklabouhlel
- Start date
"You live, you die end of. " You obviously swept death under the carpet with that comment. The topic warrants more thought than that. If you exist now and die, do you think that's it darkness, infinite nothing? Because it adds the question was that not the same state before you were born. If you exist, you will always exist in some form. As its the only fundamental quality you have.
You won't find answers in philosophy, that's not what I'm debating here. We cannot see an electron either, yet we know it exists. Can we be absolutely sure that it is what we think it is? No but our theories allow us to manipulate it, to predict its behaviour and to use it as the foundation of other theories. Layer upon layer of assumptions based on evidence, mathematics and experimentation is what science is and it's the reason why it works so well to describe the world around us. Every piece of evidence we have suggests consciousness is indeed contained within the brain. Your hypothesis is an invalid product of pure imagination, unless new evidence is found.
In other words, "anything is possible". This self-defeating ideology, if I can call it that, brings nothing to the table when trying to understand things because it creates false equivalents. An example: before we understood what lightning actually is, there were a large number of possible explanations. The main ones, "Zeus did it", magic, "Wrath of God", existed along with explanations such as a type of naturally occuring interraction, not fully understood at the time. "Anything is possible" dictates that we consider all of these explanations and avoid to rule them out. The first ones are based on imagination, with no evidence to back them up. The latter is based on the observed effects of lighting (such as fire) and, curiously, turned out to be the correct one.
And so it goes with your current I'm-just-making-things-up hypothesis. You can, of course, obliterate my argument by presenting just one piece of evidence suggesting that consciousness exists outside the brain, but we both know you can't do that, don't we?
There is evidence to support the theory that consciousness does not solely reside inside the brain. Google "Slime Moulds" they have no brain or central nervous system. But they display incredible intelligence. You can watch lab test videos where they have been put in a maze with the food at the exit. This living amoeba finds the food in these experiments.
By the way argue by all means, but tone down the arrogance its not a nice quality.
You need to provide examples of manifestations of consciousness after death. I'd rather not go into details regarding the topic of consciousness and amoebae as it will probably make me look even more arrogant. I apologise for my general tone if it's insulting but my arguments stand.
Not anything, but questions can be asked and hypotheses postulated and argued. This is a different question than those you are offering arguments against (God) and it isn't self defeating, it is merely advancing ideas to be discussed.
There may be a perfectly scientific position that means Consciousness is not simply a product of the Brain, there may not. But to derive a definitive position in the absence of evidence is not science, it is no different that a belief in God...it is a faith position in a definite reality where that reality is beyond our current understanding.
I don't need to, primarily because I have made no definitive position to either stance...you, on the other hand have, so perhaps you can provide the scientific evidence that explains how Consciousness is manifested by the brain while refuting each alternative hypothesis...we both know you can't, as currently the only theory is one of an emerging consciousness as a product of brain function and (the important phrase here) the implication that no brain function = no consciousness...from a purely physical perspective that would appear to be the case, however as we do not understand how consciousness manifests nor can we explain various NDEs or indeed the opinions of various scientists such as Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff and so on...
I'm not even saying your position is wrong, for all I know it may well be the case...what I am stating is that your opinion is not definitive and therefore cannot be regarded as such, which you clearly think it is by the way you dismiss any opinion not congruent with your own.
The science of the mind has no definitive position, some postulate a computational based theory, others a quantum based theory and others more theories than I can count....that should tell us something about laying down definitive positions on the nature of Consciousness if nothing else.
Last edited:
So please clarify for me here.
People have had limbs removed, been paralysed from the neck down and had every body part swapped out with some plastic device etc etc, and still kept their consciousness fully intact. I would say that points towards consciousness being present as a brain function. Or are you suggesting that it is somehow an external entity which is disconnected from the body?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 3,859
Logically I would say Nada. Once you're dead you're dead and thats it. Game Over.
But, that directly contradicts a lot of my views on things like Ghosts (especially having experienced one).
Do I believe our spirit somehow finds propulsion and launches out of the brain at time of death like an ejector seat towards another alternative realm. No. That's preposterous.
Until I have facts to prove otherwise I will believe its the end. Regardless of how petrifying that thought is. Otherwise, I might as well just believe in magic and religion.
But, that directly contradicts a lot of my views on things like Ghosts (especially having experienced one).
Do I believe our spirit somehow finds propulsion and launches out of the brain at time of death like an ejector seat towards another alternative realm. No. That's preposterous.
Until I have facts to prove otherwise I will believe its the end. Regardless of how petrifying that thought is. Otherwise, I might as well just believe in magic and religion.
My crazy take on it is that when you die your soul/essence/life force (whatever you want to call it) goes back in time and you are born again as yourself and live your life all over again without knowledge of the previous times you have lived it... apart from the odd occasion when you get deja vu.
Similar to my view but I believe we keep getting reincarnated until we realise ultimate happiness cannot be attained on a material planet with a body. Only when we have what it takes we can return back home as a spiritual being that lives forever without experiencing any misery again(unless they decide to come back to material land for whatever reason)
All manifestations of consciousness stop when the brain dies so billions of human beings that have lived and died represent the evidence. Based on this, which you confuse with absence of evidence, I consider consciousness to be a manifestation of the brain. What is the source of the possibility of consciousness existing ouside the brain? You consider it just as valid as my hypothesis, based on what? "We don't know for sure and I think so"? With all due respect, that is unacceptable.
Do you agree that my hypothesis is much more likely?
I am not saying anything, at least not definitively. I am offering perspectives from which to discuss the nature of consciousness and how that may relate to Life After Death.
For example (and it is only an example, I understand the controversial nature of the proposition), if we assume a quantum consciousness model, it could be feasible that such a consciousness could exist within space-time geometry (I don't pretend to understand the math behind this and I know it is controversial so I accept the refutations thereof, we need not debate this particular model) so I presume without the necessity of a functioning brain..although I would also assume any change in the physical manifestation of consciousness would impact any quantum manifestation of consciousness also. I don't see how people losing limbs or being paralysed from the neck down really impacts on consciousness as whether it is a physical function of the brain or the brain is a conduit for consciousness to manifest would imply the brain would indeed impact on how that consciousness manifested externally. It doesn't really offer any evidence for either position, at least objectively.
The point I am trying to make is that we currently do not understand the relationship between the mind and the brain....the Mind-Body Problem is a debate that has been conducted for centuries and continues to be. Therefore there is no definitive position to be had...we are all simply looking for answers.
Last edited:
Could you please explain (with the relevant proofs) how the mind manifests and the solution to the Mind-Body Problem....you consider the mind to be a manifestation, I assume by this you mean that the Mind is a byproduct of Brain Function (as Huxley postulated), so perhaps, before we continue to discuss (rather than argue which you seem to be more intent upon) your ideas, you can show the specific proofs necessary to refute or agree with such a definitive position? Or are you merely offering your own position based on what you believe your pragmatism and experience indicate?
As I said, I have offered, not definitive proofs, but ideas and hypotheses designed to engender a discussion into possible solutions to the Mind-Body Problem..some of which are philosophical in nature, others are scientific, others are esoteric...none are designed to prove a specific point or offer definitive proof or answer the question in hand.....if they did, I would offer the specific evidence in order to prove such assertions definitively.
Remember that I am approaching the question from a philosophical perspective and therefore my hypotheses would be constructed from that basis...you are answering the question definitively from a scientific perspective...that requires proof and evidence to support such a perspective...personally I feel that we do not yet have the knowledge or understanding to approach the question in such an isolated scientific way, but I am very curious to read your proofs and reasoning behind your substantive and frankly ground breaking position.
More likely than what? The myriad of other postulates out there?
Last edited:
And here lies the problem. As you say , this debate has went on for centuries.
How can someone all that time ago have any possible knowledge of how the brain or mind works? They didn't. It's superstitious nonsense passed on and on, and people still want to believe so badly they find places in fringe sciences to put it safe out of the way.
Look at what religion is doing with its Intelligent Design. They know they're wrong, they've been proven wrong without a doubt but they just change the goalposts to suit their own belief systems.
Has the question been answered? Not conclusively..in fact the more knowledge we have gain ,the more complex the question has become and more esoteric the answers...this is not addressing a modern question with ancient philosophies and it certainly isn't comparative to intelligent design arguments.
So, no therein doesn't lie the problem. The problem lies within our own gaps in our understanding, not the advocation of ancient philosophies over modern science, as many of the hypotheses mentioned are a result of modern ideas, not ancient ones.
Dont try and complicate a simple question with your metaphysical rubbish. We are born via a biological process, hell if you parents moved a little more to the left when they did the sowed the seed of love, then it would have been a different sperm entering the egg(s). Your telling me that divine intervention or some other space pixie forces were at play. You are born then you die it really is that simple. You was nothing before and you will be nothing after.
It's possible that a person's mind is replicable too. We're not really sure what a mind is, but there is some evidence that it isn't just the hardware. If someone is killed in a way that doesn't damage their brain, then for a little while their brain is physically the same. That doesn't seem to indicate that they're still alive. If someone died and their brain was quickly cut out and stuck in some chemicals that preserved its physical structure perfectly, would that person still be alive even if the brain was pickled in formaldehyde (or whatever) and completely non-functional?
I think that a computer analogy is possibly applicable because it's possible that the relationship between mind and brain is similar in nature to the relationship between software and hardware. Perhaps. Maybe.
I don't believe it either. You may have noticed that I haven't said "this is the truth" (i.e. expressed it as a belief) and that I haven't mentioned magic.
Complicate a simple question? Well Einstein if it's that bloody simple prove to this thread for a fact that death means the permanent demise of consciousness? You're talking absolute nonsense. We don't know that is the truth, and when we peg it we'll have the answer to our speculation. But don't patronize me with you're egotistical comments. This is a thread of speculation and debate, and i am merely throwing potential ideas of how the fundamentals of reality function. You have brought nothing to the table but complete arrogance, move on!
Nature is harsh in the sense that it does not care, at all. It has no capacity to care - it's just mindless processes. You live a thousand joyous years of enlightenment...an entire civilisation is annihilated by a supernova...nature does not care and sooner or later everything dies and nature doesn't care about that either.
Religions are often extremely harsh in an active way and on a human scale because humans create religions. Their god(s) torture people because they care. They're psychos who care that they're not feared enough or obeyed enough, but they care.
Nature is harsh on a universal scale because it is utterly uncaring.
I repeat: I'm not discussing philosophy. I'm not interested in philosophy because science in general and physics in particular have made such huge leaps ahead of it in terms of understanding reality that it has lost much of its relevance.
The evidence that suggests the human mind is a manifestation of the brain is everywhere. No brain, no manifestation. A damaged brain can change anything from personality to taste, speech etc. In fact, enough damage can completly wipe our consciousness too, even if much of the brain and the body continue to function. Do I really need to provide links for such obvious facts?
In your opinion, is it more likely than any of the other postulates or is it less likely, or what?