LIfe After Death

A conscience is a unique thing, but I think we're perhaps thinking its something greater than it really is, that it's almost invincible. At the end of the day we all boil down to a mass of particles in such a way we perform chemical and biological functions.

Which will then end up either being incinerated or rotting.

Your conscience that only exists while you live. It didn't before and it won't after.

Worry more about living, not dieing.
 
airrunner said:
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!
Click to expand...

Again Hogwash,

We live in the same eco-system as everything on the planet, i.e been through X mount of years of evolution, we are nothing special apart from the LUCK of the draw and being able to adapt to anything that has come our way (so-far) maybe beliving that there is life after death, but there is no proof, no meaning of anything. YOU live then you die, from nothing to nothing. Luck of the draw in 10^6 sperm swimming to single egg and developing, luck of draw.

Technology maybe has the key to copy the brainwaves, research into this making inroads. So in a sense yes there could be life after physical death but not in some space pixies metaphysical way.
 
There is no life after death!!!! BUT!!! :eek:

Energy cannot be destroyed ! So where does the energy the brain
produces go after death?

I am not talking worm food body stuff, I am talking the energy that makes you think and be! :confused:

I am not religious in anyway whatsoever!! :D


Just my 2p! ;)
 
I believe in something because 2 weeks after my nan died i saw something looking down at me when i was alseep but aware it was there in the morning and thought wtf,and 2 weeks after someone dies is the transitition from the phyiscal life to the spirtual one aparantly and i a firm believer in demons which are constantly spawning from portals which we cannot see but have the ability just to keep trying to upset you..,ive caught a voice on a digital recorder which said my full name soon as i turned it on and i did not say a word.....so yeh there is different worlds if you lke to put it that way..
 
Last edited:
I would like to think there is something after death but can't fathom how it could be.

On the subject of the soul, if I were to picture how the soul interacts with the brain I would theorise that the brain is the interface between soul and body. Brain damage or degeneration of any kind causing communication difficulty between the soul and the body manifesting as physical and or mental disability.

But as I said; these are just thoughts, I tend to think of life as one chance so live well and when it ends maybe you were a good enough person to be remembered fondly by some.
 
Zethor said:
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.
Click to expand...

If that is your honest opinion then I think your knowledge of both disciplines is quite limited, and I mean no disrespect. Interestingly one of the main hypotheses I mentioned is routed very significantly in physics..quantum physics to be precise which undermines the following statement of yours somewhat.

Zethor said:
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?
Click to expand...

Those facts do not necessarily support nor dispute either hypothetical basis under discussion...you are seemingly ignoring the very basic question which we have yet to answer and you are assuming we do have such an answer...that question of the nature of the relationship between the Subjective Mind and the Physical Brain and the very nature of consciousness itself?, the aforementioned Mind-Body Problem. If you have such an answer (aside from extrapolating an hypothesis from brain injury function while assuming the basic question as regard the MBP is known) then please provide it...because I work in a related discipline to this field and I have yet to have read or be made aware that cognitive science has provided the evidence to answer the question relating to the aforementioned relationship or nature?

You may not think you are discussing a philosophical problem..but in reality you are, as we do not understand the relationship between the mind and the body sufficiently to make an objective methodical and definitive theory as to that relationship.

Zethor said:
In your opinion, is it more likely than any of the other postulates or is it less likely, or what?
Click to expand...

Which one?, there are hundreds, if not thousands of differing hypotheses out there, ranging from the philosophical, to the religious, to the scientific and a mixture of all three, and your hypothesis is exactly what? (in its entirety, with equal evidence and methodology as many of the others under discussion) If I am to make an objective determination, then I will need more than the statements you have supplied thus far as all that amounts to is an assumption of the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the body for which you have offered only subjective and implied evidence.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
Many assumptions are being made here for both positive and negative propositions...it is as irrational to assume that a positive proposition has not been formed using reason as it is to assume the opposite. Life after Death need not mean returning to another Earthbound corporeal existence, or even a corporeal existence at all...it could simply be an altered state of existence, our corporeal self may well be a small portion of our greater existence within (or indeed without) the Universe, we may be a small insignificant part of a greater whole...our corporeal bodies may be a vessel for experience and death the transition and amalgamation of that experience in some Universal Intellect we simply cannot fathom...who knows..I certainly don't, we may well be only here, aware for what is a heartbeat and then oblivion..or our corporeal existence may simply be a heartbeat of our own existence, much of which is extant outside of this plane of experience. I mean, the entire life cycle of the Earth may well be a precursor to another transitional state of existence...the supernova of our Sun may well be another factor in that...we simply do not know.
Click to expand...

God may kill a kitten every time someone has a ****... technically we simply don't know... in reality its just a made up belief for which we have no evidence - ergo its as worthless as any other made up belief.
 
Castiel said:
If that is your honest opinion then I think your knowledge of both disciplines is quite limited, and I mean no disrespect. Interestingly one of the main hypotheses I mentioned is routed very significantly in physics..quantum physics to be precise which undermines the following statement of yours somewhat.
Click to expand...

Of course one of your I'm-making-things-up hypotheses is routed in quatum physics, you mystics just love to get down and dirty but only after scientists have done all the work. Let them handle those complex equations and only then will you show the silly scientists what's really going on. A bit of metaphysics here, a bit of esoterism there and voila, the answers are provided. Bring on the snake oil!


Those facts do not necessarily support nor dispute either hypothetical basis under discussion...you are seemingly ignoring the very basic question which we have yet to answer and you are assuming we do have such an answer...that question of the nature of the relationship between the Subjective Mind and the Physical Brain and the very nature of consciousness itself?, the aforementioned Mind-Body Problem. If you have such an answer (aside from extrapolating an hypothesis from brain injury function while assuming the basic question as regard the MBP is known) then please provide it...because I work in a related discipline to this field and I have yet to have read or be made aware that cognitive science has provided the evidence to answer the question relating to the aforementioned relationship or nature?
Click to expand...

The facts do support my hypothesis, you like to write a lot saying nothing at all, don't you? No mind has ever been observed outside the body. No mind has ever been observed without a functioning brain. Therefore, it's safe to assume the first does not exist without the latter. It's that simple, I've no idea where your walls of text are coming from.

You may not think you discussing a philosophical problem..but in reality you are, as we do not understand the relationship between the mind and the body sufficiently to make an objective methodical and definitive theory as to that relationship.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's such a mystery that bodies stop functioning after they lose their heads.:rolleyes:


Which one?, there are hundreds, if not thousands of differing hypotheses out there, ranging from the philosophical, to the religious, to the scientific and a mixture of all three, and your hypothesis is exactly what? (in its entirety, with equal evidence and methodology as many of the others under discussion) If I am to make an objective determination, then I will need more than the statements you have supplied thus far as all that amounts to is an assumption of the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the body for which you have offered only subjective and implied evidence.
Click to expand...

There you go, "anything is possible", the Easter Bunny being behind the courtains of consciousness is just as lilkely as my hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately this is one of those topics you cant really have a discussion with someone in the "science" camp. Mainly because of their dogmatic stance.

Firstly they will personally insult you for holding to such hogwash as (insert whatever paranormal/spiritual/religion etc u like)

Secondly unless it fits in with their measuring tool it is dismissed as illusion, fantasy, fairies, OR they attack the person... YOU are delusional etc etc.

So they attack the person who experienced the X event they cannot quantify...ad hominem attacks... yah really.

This also kinda reminds me of the James Randi challenge (which is always thrown up as the definitive standard for testing paranormal claims)....it is very very easy to set up a test which nothing can pass if you define the rules in such a way...to make it so.

If you are going to do a test for paranormal (inc afterlife) then you have to set the parameters for both success AND failure. Otherwise its a bogus test.

round holes and square pegs...both exist and neither will come together in union....


Zethor said:
No mind has ever been observed outside the body. No mind has ever been observed without a functioning brain. Therefore, it's safe to assume the first does not exist without the latter. It's that simple
Click to expand...

What do you mean no mind has been observed outside the body? And how would they observe it? (you are making the claim that is hasn't happened so i'm assuming you know the constituent details yeah?)
 
Last edited:
Zethor said:
Of course one of your I'm-making-things-up hypotheses is routed in quatum physics, you mystics just love to get down and dirty but only after scientists have done all the work. Let them handle those complex equations and only then will you show the silly scientists what's really going on. A bit of metaphysics here, a bit of esoterism there and voila, the answers are provided. Bring on the snake oil!
Click to expand...

Why the animostity?

To be clear..I am not a mystic, I am in fact a Scientist...one who works in the Cognitive Sciences and related fields..so the reality is I am one of those scientists you say have done all the work. :)

Anyway, clearly you are not here for an actual discussion, I can only assume you are on some crusade to assert your perceived intellectual superiority instead...I have given examples to illustrate the inconclusive nature regard our knowledge on Conciousness and stated the current positions regarding the Mind-Body Problem. You seem to have answered this question, so I must assume you are a scientist yourself and have the relevant research to support your definitive position but are not at liberty or refuse to share it.

In either case, I am not interested in a debate which revolves around ad hominem and repetitive ill defined yet definitive (claimed) conclusions. You have clearly made up your mind already and therefore we have nothing further to discuss as I am not here to convince you of anything, simply discussing a question that has plagued mankind since we gained our self awareness.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean no mind has been observed outside the body? And how would they observe it? (you are making the claim that is hasn't happened so i'm assuming you know the constituent details yeah?)
Click to expand...

I'm making the claim that there exists no evidence to support any of the hypotheses regarding a mind separated from the brain. You can mould your hypotheses to suit scientific understanding and that's how you get to Castiel's "hundreds, if not thousands of differing hypotheses", which is fine, if you like imaginary exercises, philosophy etc. I honestly have no problem with that but I cannot consider them valid until they are backed up with proof.

I'm not the one making the extraordinary claims, I don't contemplate the supernatural, I don't pretend to have a higher understanding of consciousness. What i say couldn't be clearer: what we can observe, directly or indirectly, is sufficient to provide answers. There's no need to add anything, which is why the default rational stance at this point should be: we are forms of life, one the results of bilions of years of evolution and, under the pressure of natural selection, we randomly adapted in such a way that we developed consciousness. Anything added after that has no evidence at its foundation, making it an ultimately invalid position. In other words, you're making it up and I'm not taking your word for it.
 
Castiel said:
Why the animostity?
Click to expand...

Nothing against you personally, you seem like a nice person. My issue is with the type agnosticism that implies religious/spiritual and scientific hypotheses are equivalent and gives credit to every wild idea there is. Being open to "all" possibilities is a waste of time and energy, it is trying to find the needle in the philosophical haystack, a grain of sand in the metaphysical desert, a road to nowhere.
 
Tefal said:
yes they will, just use a smaller peg
Click to expand...

What you are asking is for one or both to change..

ie redefine either the phenomena or the way it is measured (ie scientific procedures and controls)

in order for it to "fit"

If you use a hammer to just hammer in the peg that doesn't actually fit so that it will fit then it will no longer be what it is.... it will be whatever the control determines it to be...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom