Description of Afterlife?

[Rainmaker]

The idea of an afterlife is based entirely on theological beliefs since the stone age, similar to the earth being flat and the centre of the universe. Biology today understands the human brain very well, and how all of our thought processes work and are formed. To suggest that human thought processes can still exist after full brain death is 100% absurd, and is really not something that scientific inquiry would need to waste time dealing with. The idea is simply an impossibility to any organic life form that will one day die and cease to exist. Brain functions absolutely cannot carry on happening after the brain is fully dead, and rots away or is cremated because the organ responsible for creating our thoughts and consciousness has fully deceased. Again this is nowhere near the same thing as NDEs during which the brain is still physically alive and thus the means to create thought processes still exists.

It's exactly his attitude (especially the emboldened part) which is anti-science and very much not in line with the scientific method. The only problem I have with your posts is that, much like a religious zealot and much like those you profess to stand against, you stand by your ideologies and profess that they are backed by science when this is blatantly not the case. You are no different to the people you think so backward in their thinking, and that is the irony of it. Thankfully your opinions do not speak for the rest of the scientific community else we'd still be living in the stone age!

Time and again you ignore relevant parts of peoples' posts to continue to bang the same old drum. Science (or more accurately, certain groups of scientists) was not long ago stating it was absurd and 100% impossible to have such a thing as television, or a telephone. The inventors were initially ridiculed! Why waste time looking into things which are so clearly impossible?... Oh. Wait...

This attitude is very contrary to the true Spirit of science. That said, given science has clearly made great strides since last I looked, I'd love you to point me in the direction of this perfect understanding of brain function, cognition and consciousness. How does biology now understand that consciousness is formed? How does it arise? What is it? What is sentience? Where does it come from? What are emotions and why do they occur?

Science does not, and presently cannot, explain these things. Your assertion that it can and does is laughable and undermines your entire position. Stating that biology and neuroscience completely understands the mind and brain is a laughable assertion. You may as well tell those branches to retire given that they've exhausted enquiry.

You still maintain that since physical brain death is observable then it precludes the existence of anything else. Your self-imposed limitations in your thinking are precisely what clouds you from investigating, learning or experiencing anything new. You're no different to the Catholic orthodoxy blindly insisting that the universe was geocentric regardless of anything else. This is a shame.

While I have no issues with you holding the opinion (and that's all it is) that the physical brain and consciousness are irrevocably and inextricably linked, I do expect you to be able to show how and why, and to address the questions that raises, if you're going to profess that it's the be all and end all of the discussion... especially when you close by saying that science understands 100% of it by now. I'm pretty certain you'd be laughed out of a lecture hall for saying that in any decent neuro module. Or physics module. Or anything else.

Instead of simply repeating the same old closed statements, why not actually say why you think this is the case? Why not consider alternative theories and ideas? It's what true science is meant to be about. Not picking a position and sticking to it - we'd never have advanced by doing that.

 

[m4rk84]

I would like to discuss this with you later, maybe you can expand on the proposition somewhat before then, to give us some meat with which to debate?

So to carry on this somewhat when we die all the information and form that we were is scattered, it decays. This information eventually takes on new forms and sometimes even life. When this new form dies is that information replicated again in some kind of afterlife, is the afterlife just one huge camera machine that continuously takes pictures of the same materials in different shapes and forms?

Or is the information actually copied which would mean somewhere there is an endlessly evolving pile of information getting exponentially bigger as it replicates the same information in different shapes and forms without destroying the informations previous form.

I won't attest to know what is written in some of the books about an afterlife you have read, I don't much like to read about hearsay but how do they deal with these types of question?

 

[bhavv]

Science does not, and presently cannot, explain these things. Your assertion that it can and does is laughable and undermines your entire position. Stating that biology and neuroscience completely understands the mind and brain is a laughable assertion. You may as well tell those branches to retire given that they've exhausted enquiry.

You still maintain that since physical brain death is observable then it precludes the existence of anything else.

As for the bolded part, I fully agree with you, and I have no idea who said that because it wasnt me:

Biology today understands the human brain very well, and how all of our thought processes work and are formed.

Consciousness and thought processes are 100% reliant on a living brain. Once the brain stops working, the plug is pulled on all of our thought processes, memories, beliefs and anything else.

As for your query on emotions, while it may not be fully understood what the reason for each type of emotion is, all emotions are still created by nerve impulses carrying information through the brain, as is your belief of an afterlife.

This isnt even comparable to things like TVs and Phones, those are physical feats of engineering / manufacturing, whereas an afterlife is not something that can be constructed, it is merely a belief created by the impulses in your brain. And once those impulses stop permanently after brain death, you wont have any more consciousness left to go to any kind of afterlife.

Now if the afterlife is real, after all these thousands of years of human existence, dont you think that the other side would have discovered a way to contact us? Or for us to contact them? Well, I suppose if you believe in Ouija boards and stuff you might think you can, but the results from such things arent really reliable.

Also if the afterlife is real, where are the billions of people's consciousnesses stored after they die? This kind of a feat would require an immense space, and would be crammed full of an immense level of energy if it contained the consciousness of every dead thing that ever lived, I really dont see how such a thing could remain permanently invisible and undetectable.

And something being permanently invisible and undetectable is really a surefire way of telling that it isnt something that could be real.

The only reason why Humans believe in an afterlife is due to several millenia of people simply fearing death. Most humans dont want to believe that death is the end of them, they want to believe that even after death, they will carry on living eternally in some afterlife. The fundamental ideas behind this belief are illogical in nature, and only based on the brains coping mechanisms to alleviate the fear of death.

 

[Rainmaker]

As for the bolded part, I fully agree with you, and I have no idea who said that because it wasnt me:



Consciousness and thought processes are 100% reliant on a living brain. Once the brain stops working, the plug is pulled on all of our thought processes, memories, beliefs and anything else.

No but you did carry on to state that with such understanding it's a waste of time for science to investigate anything, and that anything outside of your current belief is '100% absurd'... clearly this shows closed-mindedness.

As for your query on emotions, while it may not be fully understood what the reason for each type of emotion is, all emotions are still created by nerve impulses carrying information through the brain, as is your belief of an afterlife.

This isnt even comparable to things like TVs and Phones, those are physical feats of engineering / manufacturing, whereas an afterlife is not something that can be constructed, it is merely a belief created by the impulses in your brain. And once those impulses stop permanently after brain death, you wont have any more consciousness left to go to any kind of afterlife.

Again you insist on tying the consciousness to the physical brain when there is no such understanding or evidence in any field of science. Just because you believe the physical brain creates consciousness doesn't make it true. You can't show me how that is so. You can't even show it has statistical significance to p<0.05 let alone anything else. That's because we don't know what consciousness is let alone how it works. So to take any concrete standpoint about its origin or substance is at best foolhardy.

To go further and try to tell people what consciousness is and isn't, and where and how it originates is nothing but your belief system.

Now if the afterlife is real, after all these thousands of years of human existence, dont you think that the other side would have discovered a way to contact us? Or for us to contact them? Well, I suppose if you believe in Ouija boards and stuff you might think you can, but the results from such things arent really reliable.

Well many believe that they have. But that aside, if there's life in the universe aside from us does that mean they'd necessarily have contacted us by now? Or perhaps that just our distances or the relative systems of existence are so different or vastly apart that it's not possible, or not yet possible?

And something being permanently invisible and undetectable is really a surefire way of telling that it isnt something that could be real.

Have we detected any parallel universes, or other universes inside the multiverse, recently? We could have said the same of the Higgs-Boson until very recently as well. We can't even detect black holes aside from the fact they have effects on things adjacent to them. A bit like how consciousness affects the physical vehicle. Just because there is no means to detect anything yet it is foolish to preclude the possibility entirely.

Also if the afterlife is real, where are the billions of people's consciousnesses stored after they die? This kind of a feat would require an immense space, and would be crammed full of an immense level of energy if it contained the consciousness of every dead thing that ever lived, I really dont see how such a thing could remain permanently invisible and undetectable.

Again your limited thinking is frustrating, if I'm honest. If an afterlife exists outside of our universe (our dimension, if you will) then who is to say that space even exists? If it does exist why must it be limited? You likely believe our physical universe is infinite so why would space be limited in any afterlife, when life isn't physical or corporeal and thus doesn't take up space as we know it anyway?

Again I redirect you to consider that consciousness creates the universe and not the other way around. Perhaps the billions of people who have existed are multiple emanations of only ten souls, or just one (God)? Or maybe they're all individual and space just isn't an issue when you have the power of the almighty? You're being far too rigid and throwing away possibilities just because you can't comprehend them. That is exactly why I compared you to Catholic orthodoxy as when something doesn't fit YOUR model of the universe you discard it without further ado, as it couldn't possibly have basis in fact - as it doesn't sit with what you believe.

If physical man is simply an expression of our true spirit selves, which are themselves a fragment of the Godhead, then this time and space you currently focus so stringently upon in the three dimensions of physicality are nothing but a self-imposed limitation. An illusion. To limit the idea of an afterlife based upon your physical senses is not only counter-intuitive it's nonsense.

 

[bhavv]

Ok rainmaker, feel free to carry on believing that the consciousness is not created by or is separate to the brain and may be able to survive after full death.

Have we detected any parallel universes, or other universes inside the multiverse, recently?

Again your limited thinking is frustrating, if I'm honest. If an afterlife exists outside of our universe (our dimension, if you will) then who is to say that space even exists?

All this is just science fiction, nothing about it has any truth, its just random ideas created by the human thought process, yet not based on observation. As fascinating as the ideas of the multiverse theory, or an afterlife outside of our universe are, they have absolutely no logical sense to them as such things cannot be observed or tested. You also cannot provide me with a scientific peer approved explanation as to how consciousness can somehow travel to another universe after living organisms die, never mind providing any proof.

The whole fundamental aspect of science is 'observable testable hypothesis', dont forget that, and dont confuse it with pseudo science / science fiction. As long as any idea can form a testable hypothesis for an observed phenomenon, it is fully accepted within science and is open to testing. However, regarding the afterlife, A) We cannot observe any such phenomenon as an afterlife, and B) We cannot create a testable hypothesis. Such a thing to most logical people would therefore fall into the realm of mythology. Theres nothing wrong in believing in myths, however there is absolutely no observed evidence or testable logic behind them in the first place to yet give them any credit as having any truth to them.

I have no reason to believe anything that is undemonstrable, or unsupported by scientific peer approved reasons and logic. This isnt a faith based belief as you think it is, it is simply an absence of belief due to the lack of not only supportable evidence, but also the lack of any convincing theory or explanation.

At least I can, and have clearly explained my position as to why I am sure there is no such thing as an afterlife, yet all you can do to argue the opposite is rely on laughable pseudo science fiction and / or theology, and weak analogies to TVs and phones. Of course thats simply how your brain works, but mine doesnt think that way. I have a very good and clear understanding between reality and fiction.

 

[m4rk84]

I'm afraid that I'd be offering another question to that - why the supposition that there aren't multiple afterlives possible? If an afterlife exists for humankind then what would prevent there being an afterlife for stars, for plants and for whatever else is in the universe? If you accept that one afterlife can exist then why couldn't there be multiple afterlives all co-existing or overlapping with each other?

Ok so which point do we take as our snapshot to take to our starry afterlife?

I mean surely your reasoning here suggests that you believe that all matter in any possible combination and form has a right to it's own version of an afterlife, does this mean the continuously dying skin cells all over my body also have a right to their own afterlife, is there a skin cell heaven?

When you go further towards the molecular level still does the change of form of water changing to steam count as death as much as it's form arguably changes as much or more so then death? Is there a water afterlife?

How can we possibly define the point at which a 'snapshot' of our current form is taken to an afterlife if we can't clearly define a point of death for all existing matter. The point is there is no definable death for matter.

 

[Rainmaker]

Ok rainmaker, feel free to carry on believing that the consciousness is not created by or is separate to the brain and may be able to survive after full death.

I will, until evidence proves the contrary. That was the whole purpose of this thread, to compare our religious beliefs.

All this is just science fiction, nothing about it has any truth, its just random ideas created by the human thought process, yet not based on observation.

When you talk of science fiction, are you referring to my mention of the multiverse(s) and parallel universes, or the afterlife? None of these have been shown to exist, yet strangely science has no issues addressing the first two.

The whole fundamental aspect of science is 'observable testable hypothesis', dont forget that, and dont confuse it with pseudo science / science fiction.

I've done no such thing. I was discussing religious and theological ideas, and have clearly said so. It is you who keeps making spurious claims on behalf of science (in a thread about something likely unrelated to science anyway), and then failing to back them up because you say they are, ironically, untestable.

I have no reason to believe anything that undemonstratable, this isnt a faith based belief as you think it is, it is simply an absence of belief due to the lack of not only supportable evidence, but also the lack of any convincing theory or explanation.

Many of your assertions have been - at your own admittance - untestable. As such they are faith based.

At least I can, and have clearly explained my position as to why I am sure there is no such thing as an afterlife, yet all you can do to argue the opposite is rely on pseudo science fiction and / or theology.

Can you please point out where I've relied on pseudo science at any juncture? I don't recall quoting science whatsoever. If I did I'd dig out my journals, my Athens account and Google Scholar and have at it. But this isn't a debate about science it was a theological and philosophical one. I've stated explicitly in my posts that my stance is theological, so I'm confused as to why you keep insisting on labelling it pseudo-scientific.

Of course thats simply how your brain works, but mine doesnt think that way. I have a very good and clear understanding between reality and fiction.

Um, lol?... Naturally your insinuation is that I have difficulty understanding the difference between the two, as my brain doesn't work the same way as yours. How very superior of you. You must be proud.

As it happens you're merely making assumptions about me again. I'm no bible basher, or even a member of an orthodox religion. I simply have my own life experiences and take those into account as well as what I can learn from established learning. Just because I have a different idea about the nature of consciousness than you doesn't mean I have any difficulty discerning reality from fiction (whose fiction?). It merely means my experience has led me to consider the nature of personal reality.

You would do well to be less arrogant in your approach and to take on board what is being said by others. You even dismiss the writings and ideas of eminent scientists based upon your own prejudices and once people begin to break down the discussion your resort is ad hominem attack.

"Ad hominem is the refuge of the scoundrel, without any decent arguments."

 

[bhavv]

Ok so which point do we take as our snapshot to take to our starry afterlife?

I mean surely your reasoning here suggests that you believe that all matter has a right to it's own version of an afterlife, does this mean the continuously dying skin cells all over my body also have a right to their own afterlife, is there a skin cell heaven?

When you go further towards the molecular level still is the change of form of water changing to steam count as death as much as it's state arguably changes as much or more so then death? If not why?

See, now finally we get a good analogy regarding the afterlife.

When individual cells die, does the energy contained within them go into the alternate universe consciousness storing place?

What about amoeba, and bacteria, and bees?

Yes I posted that video earlier, but now its become relevant again and it seems that everyone misses this point.

What is it that makes humans so superior that only we apparently go into an afterlife after we die?

When you talk of science fiction, are you referring to my mention of the multiverse(s) and parallel universes, or the afterlife? None of these have been shown to exist, yet strangely science has no issues addressing the first two.

They arent addressed as facts though are they? They are merely untestable hypothesis / theories that some scientists, and non scientists find fascinating. However if anyone states that science supports the multiverse theory, then yes they are just as much a pseudo scientist as anyone making the same argument for the afterlife. The multiverse theory is based entirely on fiction, that doesnt mean it cant be discussed.

You may also be surprised to learn that the multiverse theory was founded within philosophy, not science.

 

[Nitefly]

When Bhavv dies and comes face to face with god he is screwed.

"That's not fair, there was no science behind it!"
"Well HERPY DERP DERP Bhavv, the afterlife isn't fair!"

 

[bhavv]

When Bhavv dies and comes face to face with god he is screwed.

"That's not fair, there was no science behind it!"
"Well HERPY DERP DERP Bhavv, the afterlife isn't fair!"

Except that wont happen.

 

[Nitefly]

Except that wont happen.

Bet your soul it does!

 

[bhavv]

Bet your soul it does!

I would, but Ive already sold my soul for a cookie, and again for a beer.

I didnt mention that it was already sold for a cookie when selling it again for a beer though, I am sneaky

Well, ok I bet you my soul too! That means you will own a third of it after I die and if the afterlife happens.

... So any idea what you would like to do with a third of my soul?

 

[Rainmaker]

See, now finally we get a good analogy regarding the afterlife.

When individual cells die, does the energy contained within them go into the alternate universe consciousness storing place?

What about amoeba, and bacteria, and bees?

Yes I posted that video earlier, but now its become relevant again and it seems that everyone misses this point.

What is it that makes humans so superior that only we apparently go into an afterlife after we die?

Far too simplistic a way to look at things, if you're going to seriously discuss them; and again looks at things from a very rigid starting point.

 

[bhavv]

Far too simplistic a way to look at things, if you're going to seriously discuss them; and again looks at things from a very rigid starting point.

Oh right, because religion is more complicated. I dont think that the idea of an afterlife can be seriously discussed then, its a rather simple idea to begin with - you die, and then a part of you lives forever somewhere else. Even 3 year olds can understand that.

 

[Nitefly]

... So any idea what you would like to do with a third of my soul?

Trade it for a finger of kit-kat.

 

[Rainmaker]

Oh right, because religion is more complicated.

*facepalm*

 

[bhavv]

Trade it for a finger of kit-kat.

Only one finger??? Thats harsh, you dont even value my soul for a double finger kit kat

 

[m4rk84]

Far too simplistic a way to look at things, if you're going to seriously discuss them; and again looks at things from a very rigid starting point.

Meh your entire line of thinking seems to only serve to belittle rational and logical thinkers and brand them as not 'thinking outside the box' the same train of thought has proved dangerous throughout the ages causing an endless amount of war and blood shed...

 

[bhavv]

Many of your assertions have been - at your own admittance - untestable. As such they are faith based.

Believing that things are false until proven otherwise is not a faith based assertion, it is simply a lack of belief due to an absence of supporting reason and / or evidence. Comparing this to religious faith is a terribly weak argument. I am not 'believing in something without any evidence', rather I am believing that 'something doesnt exist because there is no evidence, nor even just some rational, logical reason to believe that this something exists'.

Can you please point out where I've relied on pseudo science at any juncture? I don't recall quoting science whatsoever.

I didnt say you did, I said Pseudo science and / or theology. In your case it would be 'or'.

....without any decent arguments."

I'm still waiting for a decent argument that supports the idea of an afterlife, one that is so convincing that it becomes universally accepted as a logical theory. While I do not currently believe in the afterlife, I am fully willing to change my mind in the face of overwhelming supportive reason, with or without evidence. So far no one in this world has provided that for several thousands of years.

You know the ignostic idea of god? That there is no universally accepted definition of what god is? Well there isnt a universally accepted theory / definition of the afterlife either, and as such believing in it until there is would simply be illogical.

 

[Rainmaker]

Oh right, because religion is more complicated. I dont think that the idea of an afterlife can be seriously discussed then, its a rather simple idea to begin with - you die, and then a part of you lives forever somewhere else. Even 3 year olds can understand that.

I do wish you'd stop editing your posts after posting them, as it makes it very difficult to backtrack just to see what you've snuck onto the ends of your posts once they've been replied to. It may make it appear you've added more substance than your opponent can reply to but it makes for a wearisome conversation, especially from a mobile.

My point was that you over complicate things that could be necessarily simple, and yet grossly simplify things that could be inextricably complex, and then ridicule them.

Let's momentarily accept the premise that 'people' are eternal consciousness manifested temporarily into a physical vehicle. If the consciousness is manifesting the physical form, why would each skin cell 'go to heaven'? Why is it hard to conceive that the physical world, limited as it is, operates on its own biological and physical laws but could still be generated by an external driving force or have roots in another reality? We don't even understand a fraction of a single percent of this universe yet, so to dismiss the possibility of anything outside of it is foolish in the extreme.

It's just as rational to assert that if we accept our reality is formed by consciousness then the skin cells are no more real an external manifestation than our dreams, and as such there's no afterlife for them to go to as they don't exist. We merely 'wake up' in from this dream and resume 'real life' when we 'die'. In this scenario there's no cell to go to the afterlife, merely an awakening to true existence when our consciousness (spirit, soul) 'wakes up' into its true and full reality.

Alternatively we could say that all of existence is a single consciousness experiencing itself, and as such every atom has consciousness in its way and dances in and out of existence (life) like a quantum particle. Here and then gone, emanating from and returning to its ultimate source. Who knows?

That's my point. I don't pretend to know, whereas you do - despite, as you say, it being untestable EITHER WAY.