Life after death

[James R]

Do you believe in life after death?

Please describe exactly what you think happens after we die, and explain why you believe that.

Please also say whether you consider yourself religious or a believer in God or the supernatural.

[Crunchy Cat]

Do you believe in life after death?

Nope.


Please describe exactly what you think happens after we die, and explain why you believe that.

I think consciousness ceases as the brain can no longer function. I think this because I can note gaps in consciousness during non-REM sleep or when under general anesthesia. I also note that this is consistent amongst all humans.

Next I think we decompose. This is because it is observable.


Please also say whether you consider yourself religious or a believer in God or the supernatural.

I am a little "religious" and a non-believer in both God and the supernatural.

[Tnerb]

1)Do you believe in life after death?

2)Please describe exactly what you think happens after we die, and explain why you believe that.

3)Please also say whether you consider yourself religious or a believer in God or the supernatural.

1
Yes.
I believe we are reincarnated. That we are actually souls. That CCs description fails to consider everything about souls.

2
I believe that when we die, it is common to be uncertain about what happens. I am personally terrified of dying.

So I don't like to talk about it........

But, the reason I think that we are souls and continue living, is that I was told that this is so by a powerful authority, and that it also makes sense. This is the only rational explaination that I have for knowing what happens after we die. I would not know what happens when I die and I don't know if I would like to think about it too much.

I think that we would simply cease functioning, stop moving, disappear so to speak. I believe that a lot of functioning/consciousness as CC says is dependant on being alive and uses immense energy when this happens. It is a subject of confusion but I don't see a reason to believe that there isn't life after death!

3
I am fairly religious, in that I claim belief in God because it is a highly subjected area and I have not had my lifetime to devote to criticisms which do not stand the test of time.

[shorty_37]

Do you believe in life after death?

Please describe exactly what you think happens after we die, and explain why you believe that.

Please also say whether you consider yourself religious or a believer in God or the supernatural.


Off the top of my head I would have to say No I don't believe in life after death.
However a tiny wee part of me wonders if there is some kind of spirit life.
So I guess my answer is...........I am not 100% sure.

I am not religious or a believer in God.

[cosmictraveler]

I do not believe in what you consider life after death according to any beliefs.

I believe we just die and our remains return back to the earth from where they originally started from, or the sun or the universes, whatever they came from.

Thinking that somehow we exist and go some place that everyone gathers around in and has a great eternity just doesn't seem realistic but only a myth so that humans can believe they actually have something to look forward to. Why they think that is beyond belief to me.

That is my belief, if you belive in an afterlife, that's fine with me we will all find out soon enough won't we.

[Tnerb]

Yeah.

[laladopi]

Well I for one can not be certain but I may believe that the fact that living things can feel vibes given off other things, and the ability to feel good or bad vibes makes me think that our consciousness has an everlasting affect with other living things and the connection between everything.

[skaught]

Do you believe in life after death?

1. Yes. I believe that all people, no matter how terrible go to a better place.

Please describe exactly what you think happens after we die, and explain why you believe that.

I think that the moment that we die we experience something amazing and terrible, but once the experience itself is done, we are in a place that is better than words can describe. I don't know why I believe that. I was an atheist for years, but I always felt like there was something not quite right about it. Call it a gut instinct.


Please also say whether you consider yourself religious or a believer in God or the supernatural.

I believe in a higher power. Meaning, I think there is a being that exists that is responsible for the creation of the universe. I don't think that he/she/it created life however. At least not directly. All he/she/it did was set off the big bang and sat back and watched things go from there. God is a very patient being. He was in no rush to get life started. He has an eternity of time to kill. He therefore wants everything to take a very long time. He knew that by setting off the big bang, that life would eventually form somewhere in the universe. The moment that he was anxiously awaiting was for a species to evolve that was intelligent enough to think that something out there may exist. The first time a human looked up to the sky and entertained the idea that someone or something may exist beyond his understanding was Gods greatest moment. Sadly it has all been down hill from there.

God was saddened by death however. He hated to see us humans who he loved so much suffer through an entire existence of pain and misery, and then have to die painful and terrifying deaths only to cease to exist. So he created what some people have called heaven. I believe that when we die, we are dead. The lights go out and no one is home. We experience a very powerful somewhat psychedelic experience once our hearts stop, due to brain chemistry. Read up on DMT to understand this more. But once the trip is done. Lights out. I don't believe that we have a soul. But god remembers every one of us and every detail about every one of us. So now, he is still patiently waiting for a time far far off when the entire universe is dead and gone. When every solar system and galaxy has vanished and all the energy of the universe is gone. The end of the world so to speak, but on a much larger scale. At this point, god will resurrect every one of us in heaven. To him trillions upon trillions of years have passed. But since we were dead, it will seem as though no time has passed. He will show us all of heavens glory and peace and beauty and give us the option of being with him in eternity, or going back to non existence. He will not force it upon anyone, nor will he punish any who don't want a part of it. The only requirement is that we let go of our worldly resentments and ask forgiveness for our wrong doings. Still those who refuse to do these things will not be punished. They will be given full opportunity to change and grow. They will fully understand the consequences of their choice before god sends them back to oblivion. After that, I do not know what will happen or what it will be like. But like my friend sisyphus, I am and have always been terrified of death. And when I wake up in the middle of the night in a cold shaking sweat with visions of my demise in my head; this idea gives me some comfort. But I still shit my pants at the thought of dying.

[Bricoleur]

I do not believe in what you consider life after death according to any beliefs.

I believe we just die and our remains return back to the earth from where they originally started from, or the sun or the universes, whatever they came from.

Thinking they somehow we exist and go some place that everyone gathers around in and has a great eternity just doesn't seem realistic but only a myth so that humans can believe they actually have something to look forward to. Why they think that is beyond belief to me.

That is my belief, if you belive in an afterlife, that's fine with me we will all find out soon enough won't we.

I concur. Any extension/continuation/resurrection of your own life comes through your progeny, as in "You smile just like your dad did".

[(Q)]

Do you believe in life after death?

Please describe exactly what you think happens after we die, and explain why you believe that.

Please also say whether you consider yourself religious or a believer in God or the supernatural.

Assuming the answers are to be based on belief, the stretch of the imagination would be the starting point and limit of the answer, which is clearly demonstrated in a number of posts, already.

Death would be the result of life ending, a permanent ceasing of all living functions. Note the word, 'permanent.'

[Cellar_Door]

I believe in only death after death. I believe our soul is really our character, feelings, memories and choices - but is mortal.
I have as much of an open mind as a Muslim. Moreover, no scientific study ever done has found conclusive evidence that the spirits of the dead walk the earth. Would you take a medicine that had yielded similar results?

[Tnerb]

Assuming the answers are to be based on belief, the stretch of the imagination would be the starting point and limit of the answer, which is clearly demonstrated in a number of posts, already.

Death would be the result of life ending, a permanent ceasing of all living functions. Note the word, 'permanent.'

Note the word all above in emyphysis.
PPl which seem to hold this belief, entertain it at high lvls. It amazes me that they refuse to consider other options. It perhaps is simply a "atheist mindset" sort of thing, or some judgement on certain ones who believe otherwise.

Fact is, there is no such thing as all permenant life processes ending. In fact if you pay careful attention (...!) you note that the word all in this paragraph is riddled with confusion and misdirection.

[(Q)]

Note the word all above in emyphysis.
PPl which seem to hold this belief, entertain it at high lvls. It amazes me that they refuse to consider other options.

Other options to death would imply the supernatural, as no options for life remain with the dead in nature (see zombification and other christian party tricks).

And in the absence of life; death, one would need little "belief" to entertain this observation, other than the belief that they themselves are alive to observe the dead.

It perhaps is simply a "atheist mindset" sort of thing, or some judgement on certain ones who believe otherwise.

If an atheist mindset be a requirement to observe the dead, I would agree, in that it brings home to the intellect the fragility of life, how easily, effortlessly, quickly and without any notice whatsoever, life can be taken away in the wink of an eye.

Fact is, there is no such thing as all permenant life processes ending. In fact if you pay careful attention (...!) you note that the word all in this paragraph is riddled with confusion and misdirection.

If it is a fact that the dead are not permanently dead, why then cannot I not find Elvis?

[Fraggle Rocker]

Do you believe in life after death?The belief that there is some form of "life" after death is human hubris at its worst. It's the conviction that of all the gazillions of tons of matter in the universe, these particular hunks of organic tissue are so fucking special that we not only evolved intelligence like many animals and language skills like a few of them, but we, alone, evolved something that completely falsifies science: a soul--a supernatural force that interacts with the natural universe. If this were true it would violate the fundamental principle underlying all science, that the natural universe is a closed system. Understandably, there is absolutely zero evidence that such a bizarre anomaly is true, but that doesn't stop people from embracing the cognitive dissonance of believing it anyway. Because of their human hubris. "We're so important that the natural laws of the universe don't apply to us." Yeah right!Please describe exactly what you think happens after we die, and explain why you believe that.A satisfactory definition of "death" in one of the higher vertebrates (birds and mammals) is the irreversible degradation of the synapses in the brain. So what happens after a person dies is exactly that: His brain loses its electrochemical organization, so everything that comprised his identity--his thoughts, memories, personality, etc.--ceases to exist. If he wasn't killed by an explosion or falling into a vat of acid his body still exists and we might even be able to keep the lower animal functions operating like breathing, heartbeat and metabolism of nutrients. But that's just a pile of organic tissue that has irretrievably lost its higher organization; the person does not exist any more. His spirit still exists, according to a sensible definition of the term, because he's left his mark on civilization: the memories of those who loved him and those he taught, the things he built, the ideas he promoted, the attitudes of his children, the success of his business. But the word "spirit" is a metaphor, nothing more. The actual person is simply gone.

Why do I "believe" this? That's a strange question to ask, because it's really a dishonest way of asking why I do not "believe" the mythologies of the religionists. No one has to defend his lack of belief in someone else's fantasies. The burden of proof is on them to explain why it's not completely unreasonable of them to "believe" in it.

In fact, Carl Jung helped us understand why so many people "believe" in things for which there is absolutely no evidence. These things are called "archetypes" and they are instinctive motifs that are pre-programmed into our brains through evolution. They may have been survival traits in an era whose dangers we can't imagine--many archetypes are, such as our instinctive fear of a large animal with both eyes in front of its face, or of stepping off of a precipice; people without those fears didn't live long enough to reproduce. Or they may be accidents passed down through a genetic bottleneck like Mitochondrial Eve. In any case, since we're born with these beliefs they feel true, and that makes them seem more true than the beliefs we acquire later in life through learning and reasoning.Please also say whether you consider yourself religious or a believer in God or the supernatural.I do not "believe" in gods or any other supernatural things. We have spent five hundred years, since the initial development of the scientific method, exhaustively testing the basic hypothesis that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior. That hypothesis has never been falsified, so it now stands as the canonical theory that underlies all science--"true beyond a reasonable doubt," to borrow the language of the law since the language of science sucks when attempting to communicate with laymen.

Any hypothesis that contradicts a canonical theory is by its very nature an extraordinary hypothesis, and according to the Rule of Laplace--another key component of the scientific method--it must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat it with respect. No extraordinary evidence for the existence of a supernatural universe and supernatural creatures that interact with the natural universe has ever been provided. In fact there has never been a shred of evidence that could even be regarded as promising, worth a second look. Millions of scientists lead second lives as religionists when they take their lab coats off, and none of them has ever run back into the lab the next morning with the evidence he needs to resolve his cognitive dissonance regarding the nature of the universe.

Beliefs in the supernatural are based entirely on hope, instinct, and human hubris. We are therefore under no obligation to treat them with respect, at least in a place of science like this one. Of course that doesn't mean we are obligated to treat them with disrespect, but a few of us do.

Civilization and its precursor, the Agricultural Revolution, has been an eleven-thousand-year struggle to override our Stone Age instincts with reasoned and learned behavior. It's long past the time to override the instinct to believe in supernatural creatures, since it has stalled civilization at the level of hostile tribes making war on each other over their different interpretations of the archetype of "God."

[Orleander]

dead is dead. we die the same as plants or a bug. There is no afterlife, just wishful thinking.

[Tnerb]

Wishful thinking it is!

[LadyMidnight]

Death is when we cease to exist, and there is nothing beyond that. The end.

[temur]

[...] In fact, Carl Jung helped us understand why so many people "believe" in things for which there is absolutely no evidence. These things are called "archetypes" and they are instinctive motifs that are pre-programmed into our brains through evolution. [...]

Is it related to Freud's "the religious man is simply a man seeking the comfort and discipline of his father" argument?

[Tnerb]

Is it related to Freud's "the religious man is simply a man seeking the comfort and discipline of his father" argument?

Its also a "as apes, we still have no soul." arguement in which, "There is no soul, because as atheists we are proud to say that there can exist no afterlife, and all others are delusional" arguement, in which states "At which time there is no afterlife, we simply have no further evidence to provide." Arguement. In which "We know there is no afterlife, because we are Gods." arguement

[Fraggle Rocker]

Is it related to Freud's "the religious man is simply a man seeking the comfort and discipline of his father" argument?Well... Jung was Freud's student but he went off in his own direction. Freud's model went as far as the ego, superego and id. Jung's model includes a new concept called the "collective unconscious."

Freud is very much into what we absorb from the experience of growing up with our parents around, too naive to question what they say and do. Jung doesn't exactly gainsay that (not all of it anyway), but he adds a new layer: what we are born with.

Not all of the collective unconscious is archetypes (motifs we're born with), if I'm not mistaken. (My wife is the Jung disciple in the family; I've been to a Joseph Campbell lecture.) Some of it is indeed comprised of things we pick up, but we pick it up from a much larger community than our immediate family. It's the motifs that are repeated intensively in our culture, in everything from history books to entertainment to church to advertising to political propaganda. And certainly there's a large component of that in any religion, which is why "the same" religion isn't quite the same when you cross a national boundary or just drive into a different part of town.

But the fundamentals of religion are archetypes, and Jung showed that all religions in all places and times share the same archetypes, indicating that they're programmed rather than learned. The same set of "spirits" shows up in both the Greek and Egyptian pantheons, as well as other cultures that aren't as well-known to us and which I'm certainly not well enough educated to talk about. These 23 spirits appear to be a map of the raw human personality; in some of us the Hunter is stronger than the Healer and on some days we have to draw on our Warrior instead of our Reveler, but they're all there jockeying for position inside each of us. This is borne out by the not-coincidental appearance of this same stock set of characters in everything from the dramatis personae of Shakespeare's plays to the population of the soap operas on every channel.

Monotheism stands in stark opposition to this and that is its flaw. The holy books of the Abrahamists have the same cast of characters as the Greek, Hindu, Maori and Choctaw legends, but rather than providing a map to our 23-dimensional spirit, they are all made subordinate to a single deity, who judgmentally squashes them all into a pathetic one-dimensional scale with "good" at one end and "evil" at the other. So if you don't come directly home one night but get drunk and go carousing, it's not your Reveler popping up to remind you that you've been suppressing him and spending too much time at the office; it's "the Devil" distracting you from doing "God's work." If your bachelor pad is home to five dogs, it's not because your Parent has been suppressed and needs children to nurture; it's because the Devil is letting you dissipate your noble instinct to help others from the Salvation Army shelter to a bunch of soulless four-legged ornaments on God's lawn. (A Jungian analyst would roll his eyes at my amateurish examples and spend an hour telling me what's wrong with them, but I hope you get the idea.)

We can believe in a single Deity because a basic general belief in the supernatural is a strong archetype unto itself, inspiring us to write letters to Santa Claus and avoid letting a black cat cross our path... and to believe without critical introspection in the certainty that there is some supernatural component lurking inside us that will whisk away our personality and memories and keep them "alive," after the brain tissue that hosts them has turned into topsoil. (To veer back on topic.)

[Asguard]

i ticked "other" because there is no high grade scientific evidence either way. There for the only conclusion someone can draw is "wait and see"

[Tnerb]

Sometimes the seeming "profoundness" of an argument, makes the argument so much more arguable. Especially in this case... Of course, how profound or not makes a single bit of difference, that is not really any at all. Just because we like to proclaim atheism, it does not mean that atheism is so profound that it can wash away all of theism, and all of belief in a soul, without of course first discussing what a soul is. Destroy the concept of soul and all the beliefs talked about it, and you of course destroy the very foundation for that which is believed. You cannot do this, without first being naive or ridiculous. Of course the soul exists, we haven't even begin to discuss it. We can dismiss it for eternity, and that is probably in this case one of the better of the approaches, but we can't forget what we're dismissing. Otherwise, we're like Santa Clause not handing out presents to the people who need them.

That isn't to say that there isn't a concept or idea or reason for belief in soul. Belief in soul/afterlife/etc, is simply a belief in what is most rational. Therefore, our debates will not reach beyond closed mindedness without first discussing the truth. Good post fraggle rocker, but you are way very atheist lmao~

[candy]

I believe that there is an energy pattern that continues to exist after the "mortal coil "ends.
I also believe that too much preoccupation with the afterlife may cause you to miss living.

[James R]

I asked this partly because I just read something that says that people's beliefs in life after death don't necessarily correlate with their other religions beliefs. That is, many who says they believe in God do not really believe in life after death. They are not sure they'll end up in heaven with God. And, on the other hand, many of those who don't believe in God nevertheless think that in some way human beings go on after death - they believe in some kind of soul or spirit, even if they don't believe in God.

To the religious people here: which of you believes in the literal truth of what your religion says happens after death (e.g. the biblical stories of heaven and hell, or the Qur'an's stories of paradise and eternal fire?).

[Lucysnow]

Do you believe in life after death?

No

Please describe exactly what you think happens after we die, and explain why you believe that.

I think we get caught up in the nirtogen cycle.

Please also say whether you consider yourself religious or a believer in God or the supernatural.

Not religious, don't believe in god unless its some animist abstraction.

In short life would have no meaning without death. In other words if we had souls that could 'feel' and 'think' etc after life then what would be the difference between life and death? What weight would life have if death provided us with all the goodies of conscious physical awareness? Mind and body are one and neither fair very well without the other, they can exist without the other but it would be a crappy way of experiencing, for example spinal cord injury where the mind is aware but the body inert.

'Soul' and 'spirit' are terms that I find only meaningful when speaking of the living and once life stops so does the notion of both. Existence proceeds essence.

[Tnerb]

Do you believe in life after death?

No

Please describe exactly what you think happens after we die, and explain why you believe that.

I think we get caught up in the nirtogen cycle.

Please also say whether you consider yourself religious or a believer in God or the supernatural.

Not religious, don't believe in god unless its some animist abstraction.

In short life would have no meaning without death. In other words if we had souls that could 'feel' and 'think' etc after life then what would be the difference between life and death? What weight would life have if death provided us with all the goodies of conscious physical awareness? Mind and body are one and neither fair very well without the other, they can exist without the other but it would be a crappy way of experiencing, for example spinal cord injury where the mind is aware but the body inert.

'Soul' and 'spirit' are terms that I find only meaningful when speaking of the living and once life stops so does the notion of both. Existence proceeds essence.

Well fucking said, woman!

[PsychoticEpisode]

For what its worth....For believers: The more negative one is about this life, the more positive one is about an afterlife. Not many wish to cross over to something worse than what we have here.

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: Life is a transition to death, and death is a transition to life. Basically what happens at death is that we return to the bottom of the food chain and become worm food. It's cyclic like predator-prey-preditor-prey. The product of conceptus becomes the predator. The newborn baby and child becomes prey. As we grow up, we become predators. We die and return to being prey. Once the bioelectric energy leaves our bodies, I don't know where it goes or what happens to it, if anything. We just don't exist anywhere except inside the belly of the worm.

[Asguard]

actually its bettles, not worms which eat us:p

[PsychoticEpisode]

Break out a new calculator boys & girls, your percentages add up to more than 140% in the poll. Also wouldn't 'none of the above' and 'other' be the same thing?

[laladopi]

Also wouldn't 'none of the above' and 'other' be the same thing?

I was thinking the same thing as well.

[Orleander]

actually its bettles, not worms which eat us:p

bottles? battles? :confused:

[Tnerb]

beetlejuice

[Medicine*Woman]

actually its bettles, not worms which eat us:p
*************
M*W: Go bettles, yeah!

Note to Asguard: I find that the usage of the word "worms" is a more metaphorically and poetically descriptive, but then that's just me. Since we end up at death back down to the inner dark recesses of the food chain, does it really make a significant rat's ass difference as to what digests our remains? I think not, but that's just me.

[James R]

The two people who believe in reincarnation haven't explained themselves yet. Nor have the three limboers or the person who believes in physical resurrection of the body.

Care to give us your thoughts on these things?

[Tnerb]

Can you tell us which people those are?

[James R]

It's not a public poll.

[john smith]

Do you believe in life after death?

Please describe exactly what you think happens after we die, and explain why you believe that.

Please also say whether you consider yourself religious or a believer in God or the supernatural.

I believe that one's spirit (or soul) resides after the body dies. When my Grandma died, 5 years ago, me and my two brothers were given the option of seeing her body, i decided to. What i saw just wasn't my Grandma, it was just this seemingly empty shell, and from that moment on i just 'knew' that there was more to death than i had previously thought.

As the funeral man said to me, Don't worry son, thats just the car she drove around in (when looking at her body), i thought that fitted perfectly!

I think im open to there being 'supernatural' beings, and i dont consider myself religious. I'd say i was more of a 'spiritual' person.

[listeria_m]

Do you believe in life after death?

Please describe exactly what you think happens after we die, and explain why you believe that.

Please also say whether you consider yourself religious or a believer in God or the supernatural.

Do I believe there is a place called heaven and a place called hell? No. Heaven and hell are both found on earth.

I believe in reincarnation which means to be made flesh again while keeping an essential part which is called ''soul'' unchanged. I believe that karma is an intricate part of who we are , and who we shall be. Why do I believe that? I am still in the process of perfecting that belief.

I am not religious. I know God exists as well as the Devil. Do I believe in the supernatural? I believe that there are things that do not have a logical , scientific explanation.

[(Q)]

I am not religious. I know God exists as well as the Devil. Do I believe in the supernatural? I believe that there are things that do not have a logical , scientific explanation.

You are religious and you do believe in the supernatural, by definition.

Everything has a logical, scientific explanation, even if it hasn't presented itself.

[Billy T]

I believe that "I" am a component of an informational process (sort of like a computer program) that takes place in the parietal part of the brain, when my body is not in deep sleep (or dead). This informational process is the only thing "I" directly perceive. Effectively it is a Real Time Simulation, RTS, of the sensed world, made by projecting ahead the sensory inputs to compensate for the synaptic delays (diffusion of neuro-transmitters etc across the synaptic clefs).

If we really perceived the results that "emerge" after dozens of these synaptic delays, then a fast game of ping-pong would not be possible. That is why the construction of the RTS evolved. Humans probably evolved it prior to Neanderthals and thus were able to kill off these bigger brained and stronger creatures. - Much easier to duck a thrown rock if your perception of where it is now comes from a RTS, rather than is one that emerges with more than a dozen synaptic delays. (Seen where it WAS up to 1/3 of a second earlier.)

In a long post, made years ago, I give many pieces of evidence for the reality of the RTS. The RTS may also permit genuine free will. I.e. the RTS may be a possible escape from the control of natural laws over your every thought and action (I.e. natural laws deterimining the firing of every nerve in your body.) The price is high for genuine free will to be real is high. - You must be only non-material information in a simulation (or a "soul"). All material concepts of you are controlled by the natural laws. For my RTS see:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1294496&postcount=52
for details, and evidence supporting this non-standard POV. It is a long read, about 8 pages if printed.


Thus, "I" do not exist when my body is in deep sleep or dead - both Death and deep sleep terminate "me." Note: I or me in quotes is how I distinguish my conscious (or dreaming) personality from my body. Much of what I do, how I react is due to my body, especially the brain activity "I" am not conscious of. Here the I without quotes indicates the body and its actions you can see as distinct from "me," the perceiving component in the RTS. That RTS includes a usually accurate model of the sensed real world, which of course always includes my body (and everything that you may think of as me, such as abilities I have).

Thus, “None of the above” is my response.

[Xylene]

Personal opinion--I think that the entity we see as God is a collection of super-evolved minds. It would be nice to think that those eternal minds are actually interested in the progress of the Human species, but we're such a bunch of noddies that I'm dubious about whether they can be bothered.

[Fraggle Rocker]

I believe that "I" am a component of an informational process (sort of like a computer program) that takes place in the parietal part of the brain, when my body is not in deep sleep (or dead). This informational process is the only thing "I" directly perceive. Effectively it is a Real Time Simulation, RTS, of the sensed world, made by projecting ahead the sensory inputs to compensate for the synaptic delays (diffusion of neuro-transmitters etc across the synaptic clefts). If we really perceived the results that "emerge" after dozens of these synaptic delays, then a fast game of ping-pong would not be possible.No one hits a ping-pong ball by seeing where it is or even by believing he sees it where it is. The delays in the physical motion of our muscles are just as long as the synaptic delay--on the order of magnitude of .1 second. He aims his paddle so that when it completes its planned motion it will be at the point where he also expects the ball to be. And both the planning of the motion of the arm he controls and the expectation of the motion of the paddle governed only by inertia, gravity and air pressure is derived from kinematic calculations. I suppose you could call that real-time simulation since it's a mental hologram, as it were, of the projected path of both the ball and the paddle. But I don't think it fits your definition of RTS because its performed to compensate for the delay in the motion of the arm, not the synaptic delay. Even though the timing and the result are roughly the same, the process is not.That is why the construction of the RTS evolved. Humans probably evolved it prior to Neanderthals. . . .Also, it doesn't fit your definition of RTS because no advanced evolution was involved. Other species, felids in particular but also many or most of the advanced primates, are very adept at kinematic calculation.. . . . and thus were able to kill off these bigger brained and stronger creatures.Homo sapiens likely prevailed because the ice age the Neanderthals were better adapted for was ending. Anomalies in the DNA of Europeans suggest that they assimilated the surviving small population of Neanderthals by interbreeding.Thus, "I" do not exist when my body is in deep sleep or dead - both Death and deep sleep terminate "me." Note: I or me in quotes is how I distinguish my conscious (or dreaming) personality from my body.You might consider adopting Jungian terminology for clarity--not to mention ease of punctuation.;) His terms include the "conscious," "unconscious" and "dream ego."

[listeria_m]

You are religious and you do believe in the supernatural, by definition.


Since you know me better than I do.


Everything has a logical, scientific explanation, even if it hasn't presented itself.

Not everything.

[Billy T]

No one hits a ping-pong ball by seeing where it is or even by believing he sees it where it is. The delays in the physical motion of our muscles are just as long as the synaptic delay--on the order of magnitude of .1 second. He aims his paddle so that when it completes its planned motion it will be at the point where he also expects the ball to be. And both the planning of the motion of the arm he controls and the expectation of the motion of the paddle governed only by inertia, gravity and air pressure is derived from kinematic calculations. I suppose you could call that real-time simulation since it's a mental hologram, as it were, of the projected path of both the ball and the paddle. But I don't think it fits your definition of RTS because its performed to compensate for the delay in the motion of the arm, not the synaptic delay. Even though the timing and the result are roughly the same, the process is not. Also, it doesn't fit your definition of RTS because no advanced evolution was involved. I have never defined the RTS, but I agree with most of this, except the "he aims his paddle" seems to ignore or greatly over simplify what is actually happening. In my POV a conscious "he" is only an observer/ perceiver of the action. A conscious "he" had nothing to do with planning how to hit the ball.

About 30 (or more?) years ago, Dr. Libbet demonstrated that our decision only appear to be made by "us." Actually they are made and then we learn of them and falsely think "we" made them. Libbet's technique was simple and clever: He had surface electrodes on the exposed brain of his alert patients, mainly in the pre-motor cortex as I recall. The patient would push a button at random interval, whenever “he” decided to do so. He also watched a clock, which had a much faster than normal sweep second hand, and reported the position of that sweeping second hand when he had decided to push the button, but the report was after the button was pushed (avoiding some possible confusing motor/motor interactions).

Libbet’s electrical records recorded the neural activity associated with the planning of the mussel commands needed for the button push up to a second prior to the reported decision making instant. Within the last few years, using MRI techniques, focused on activity in the frontal lobes, it has been shown that decision related activity may begin even 10 seconds prior to the subject deciding to push a button.

Even something as simple as pushing a button, which your finger is already resting on, is very complex, tightly scheduled, set of planned mussel commands, Some mussels must be relaxed while their counter posed mussels are contracted, all in an analog fashion for smooth motion. Walking is an extremely complex rhythmic cycle that does include corrections for even the transmission delays of neural impulses traveling down the long axons to the feet. It typically takes a year to learn how to walk – how complex that simple act is only became very clear when man tried to make a robot do it (even very poorly).

My point is that “I” have nothing to do with the complexities of a fast game of ping-pong. “I” only think “I” do.

I will try to define a little what I think is the RTS. It certainly includes both the correction for the synaptic delays of the sensor system AND all of the delay and complex sequential scheduling of the mussel commands for even the simplest actions, like reaching for a glass of water, which is an integrated eye/ hand feedback process. Thus, both the sensory sensations and my body’s movement activities are experienced by “me” in real time, but “I” am oblivious to the complexity actually taking place earlier. “I” only perceive the act and think “I” made it happen, but really my brain did and “I” only watched, like a passive observer. Libbet’s and the recent MRI experiments show this is the case.

“I” am only a very tiny component in the RTS. That “I” component is mainly supplied to the parietal RTS by and from the frontal cortex. – Much like the old Fortran “subroutine call routines” (I assume you remember Fortran.) “I” am very actively evolving in the frontal cortex, connected to my memories, emotion states, and beliefs, much like an active data set with constant processing by many different users occurring; however, “I” am oblivious to all this activity, which is actually changing “me.” “I” can ONLY perceive my current nature, the location of my limbs and their movements, in the real time model of my body and the external world, etc within the parietal RTS. “My” perceptions / experiences in this simulated world are “returned” to the frontal lobe, again much like the information returned to the subroutine of an old Fortran call.

I.e. although I am constantly evolving via frontal lobe activity (perhaps becoming happy or sad) “I” do not experience / perceive this frontal lobe activity. “I” find out or perceive the changes in “me” within the RTS, just as it is only there that “I” learn about the decisions made earlier by my brain but I believe “I” am playing a good game of ping-pong making the decision to try to put spin on the ball etc. but in reality, “I” am only a self deluded passive observer of what my body (brain included) have earlier done.

Other species, felids in particular but also many or most of the advanced primates, are very adept at kinematic calculation.Homo sapiens likely prevailed because the ice age the Neanderthals were better adapted for was ending. Anomalies in the DNA of Europeans suggest that they assimilated the surviving small population of Neanderthals by interbreeding. You might consider adopting Jungian terminology for clarity--not to mention ease of punctuation.;) His terms include the "conscious," "unconscious" and "dream ego."I have read only a little of Jung. Not sure I accept his “collective conscious” POV but I do think humans come with some archetypes. Even most primates do. For example, a monkey born and raised for years in captivity will instinctively flee from the first snake it sees but most other animals are attractions for it – things to play with or torment. As Freud is so much better known and also uses many of the same terms, I try not to use any of them (except “conscious” in the sense of “aware of”) . I do not want the prior concepts, but try to define my ideas without them.

As you like birds, you probably know that the Baltimore Orel makes a distinct hanging nest. I think it was Florida where none are found that there was a large aviary with many other bird types. Some Baltimore Orel eggs were hatched there in it. When they were mature, they built their characteristic nest although they were not raised in one and never saw one. All animals, humans included, have strong built-in behavior dispositions and concepts (archetypes, if you like). The existence of some greater power (God) is probably one, but it may just be the sequence of transfers from the initially omnipotent mother to a postulated God when she is discovered to be lacking, as Freud suggested. I liked The Economist discussion of why these, even the psychological attitude, archetypes evolved. See it at:
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12795581
IMHO, it is one of the best articles they have publised in last several issues. I think you will like reading it if you have not.

With the above discussion of the separate frontal lobe unconscious processing of “me” perhaps I can make clear what I think is the difference between human and many animals’ RTSs, including birds. I am nearly certain that birds have a RTS also as flying thru a ticket with many tiny branches at high speed does not seem to be possible without a real time understanding or where its wings are wrt the multitude of branches and twigs. I suspect, however, that the bird does not have any “I.” I.e. I think birds are very sophisticated biological machines. Some of the higher primates, and probably the Neanderthals, have/ had an “I,” but not as complex as that of the early humans. I.e. were not as “constructively conscious” but perhaps mainly “passively conscious.”

I think it was Humphrey who first advance a plausible reason why humans have an “I”/ are “constructively conscious,”* not just “passively conscious.” – We could just be biological robots too. (Concept referred to in this context as “zombies” but totally distinct for the “living dead” of Haiti etc.) As Humphrey put it: The function of consciousness, (or the existence of an “I,” I add) is to let our hypotheses die instead of us. – I.e. “We” can and do consider ourselves and the probably consequence of various alternative acts before doing one.)

I doubt dogs have any significant “I” because of an experiment done long ago (Pre-Human Society days.):
There were about 20 “pound dogs” which had been held the require time, unclaimed. They were tied by short leash to stakes spaced uniformly around a small circle and had not been feed that day yet. The pound keeper, who normally feed them, was in the center of the circle with a club. Systematically he approached one dog and clubbed it to death and then returned to the center of the circle before doing the same to the next dog. As he approached the next dog (and even the very last one still alive later) it exhibited “happiness signs” (tail wagging, advancing towards its approaching killer as far as the short leash would allow.) Not one dog seemed to understand that it was about to be clubbed to death but behaved as if it expected to finally be feed that day’s meal, by the man who normally did so.
-----------------
*As explained earlier, much of human “constructive consciousness” is unconscious activity in the frontal lobes that “we” become conscious of later when the results are available in the RTS. This is NOT to say that no “thinking” occurs within the RTS. – Yes we can consciously, especially via the use of language, consider various alternative acts.

Feral children (without language) however, I suspect do not think consciously but they surely do “think” in the sense of evaluate various alternatives and transfer one to the RTS to use and become aware of. – This is just speculation, of course. Based on what I read years ago about a feral child a German doctor tried to teach language to, tried to “civilize” etc.

[(Q)]

Since you know me better than I do.

It has nothing to do with you personally and everything to do with definition. You believe in a god, hence you're religious. Simple, really.

Btw, you never mentioned which god? Is it Zeus, he was one of my favorite mythical gods.

Not everything.

Yes, everything. But, I get the impression that's what you WANT to believe.

[temur]

Very interesting ideas, Billy T! I have some questions.

I don't understand how RTS can offer GFW (I have read the article you linked), since RTS is itself based on physical brain, much like any program running on a computer will be deterministic.


“I” only perceive the act and think “I” made it happen, but really my brain did and “I” only watched, like a passive observer. Libbet’s and the recent MRI experiments show this is the case.


This feels really strange. How can I not know when I am not "in charge" :eek: What is the evolutionary advantage of it?


As Humphrey put it: The function of consciousness, (or the existence of an “I,” I add) is to let our hypotheses die instead of us. – I.e. “We” can and do consider ourselves and the probably consequence of various alternative acts before doing one.)


One can imagine "biological robots" too can have this ability to simulate alternative acts and choose one of them. Consciousness seems to be not necessary.

[listeria_m]

It has nothing to do with you personally and everything to do with definition. You believe in a god, hence you're religious. Simple, really.

Btw, you never mentioned which god? Is it Zeus, he was one of my favorite mythical gods.

I LOVE reading about them ( the mythical gods, I mean) ....okay let's put it this way, I don't consider myself religious since I don't go to church and I don't pray.



Yes, everything. But, I get the impression that's what you WANT to believe.

Umm...it just occured to me that you could very well be right....but hey I'm sarcastic, and skeptical by nature :rolleyes:

[(Q)]

I LOVE reading about them ( the mythical gods, I mean) ....okay let's put it this way, I don't consider myself religious since I don't go to church and I don't pray.

Being religious doesn't necessarily mean going to church and praying. It simply means the belief in the supernatural; gods.

Umm...it just occured to me that you could very well be right....but hey I'm sarcastic, and skeptical by nature :rolleyes:

It's great that you're skeptical. But, you most certainly have to remain skeptical in light of supernatural beliefs, as many are simply the myths and superstitions handed down over the centuries.

[Billy T]

Very interesting ideas, Billy T! I have some questions. and very good ones!

I don't understand how RTS can offer GFW (I have read the article you linked), since RTS is itself based on physical brain, much like any program running on a computer will be deterministic.This is truly the weak link in my ideas that the RTS may permit Genuine Free Will. I do not have a good answer, only a "hope." I know too little about logic (especially its various forms) to do anything more than hope.

Clearly any set of instructions (a program) running in any physical machine (and very probably even in a virtual or simulated machine) will be deterministic if the statements of the program have well defined consequences. (Make a definite change in the state of the machine running these instructions.) I believe this is the same (or closely related to) saying that any set of logical statement which have a fixed "truth value" will of necessity produce deterministic results. (Or at best some probabilistic results) Neither would allow for what I call Genuine Free Will; perhaps can produce "random free will," but personally I would prefer to be a deterministic biological machine, well evolved via millions of generations than have random free will.

My hope is that the program could extensively use statements that are neither true nor false, probably a network of self-referencing statements. The simplest example I know of is the statement:

"This sentence is false."

Although that is a simple declarative statment, it has no truth value. In the brain the program of the RTS could have many mutually referencing statements. Perhaps the results would be neither random, nor deterministic, but depend upon some dynamic interactions within the set. I really do not know enough about possible logical structures to know if this makes any sense, but am not sure that anyone knows how such a network of self and mutually references statements might work, especially if "I" am part of the dynamic and mutually interacting mutually referencing set.

I was long troubled by the inconsistency of the natural laws and genuine free will. At least now, it seems there MAY be some way they could co-exist, but I tend to doubt it. I never assert that GFW exists - only that I am no longer forced to chose between it being based on some non-material "sprit" or not being compatible with Physics (more generally "the natural laws). Now, I can hope there is some type of logical structure that can govern the operation of a program, in which "I" am a component, that allows that "I" component to control the results. Sorry if this is not clear - only trying to suggest the vague ideas I have had on this very fundamental weak point, which you and only a few others have recognized.



This feels really strange. How can I not know when I am not "in charge" :eek: What is the evolutionary advantage of it? I think perceiving the world in real time (including where my hand is, for example) is a huge evolutionary advantage, but admit (as your next question suggests) that the need for and "I" is less obvious. Knowing whether or not "I" decided something or only have the illusion that "I" dicided, is probably impossible.

One can imagine "biological robots" too can have this ability to simulate alternative acts and choose one of them. Consciousness seems to be not necessary.Yes, they certainly could, but unless they have some identity with the actor making these hypothetical alternatives, they would need some other selection criteria. I think they need to identify themselves in the simulations of the alternatives. I.e. if they have no wishes, hopes, desires etc. what criteria are they to choose by? In psychological terms, they need "quali" (roughly "feelings" or an inter life filled with joy, anger, hope, greed, beliefs, wishes, etc. - all the things that the Behaviorist denied even existed).

Reminds me of an old anti-behaviorist joke: (Guy to girl, just after sex.) He says:
"It was good for you, how was it for me?"

Later by edit:
Certainly the brain is a system with very many self-referencing neural systems and the consequence of firing of any nerve "A" is highly dependant upon what several hundred, at least, other nerves have been doing in the very recent past. -Almost a perfect model of an non-determistic, self-referencing system. Man has no idea as to what this corresponds to as a logical processing system.

[Tnerb]

Please describe exactly what you think happens after we die, and explain why you believe that.

I think we get caught up in the nirtogen cycle.

What does this say about atheism? If such a thing is not disproven, what does it leave? Does it mean that atheists do not believe in God- then they do not believe that this is a possibility? Therefore atheists accept that this is possible, but "don't believe in god"? This is a problem with lixluke's theories. I do not believe there is a part of any person where it is "do believe" "don't believe"- then that atheism is an improper assessment. If someone claims they do not believe in God, then they dismiss all possible evidence because they do not believe in the possiblity of for example, Pantheism, etc etc, all such realitys which are more than possible according to any of their "beliefs"....

Does anyone agree? Is "Disbelief in God" illogical then?
One stance is correct, and claiming that you are Disbelieving in god is illogicial so that leads us to what?

Is then Agnosticism the only possible stance to take... Anyone?
Besides of course for belief in God, which is "the only possible stance to take."
Thank you.

[swivel]

I think Fraggle Rocker covered it all in Post #14

[Enmos]

Do you believe in life after death?

Please describe exactly what you think happens after we die, and explain why you believe that.

Please also say whether you consider yourself religious or a believer in God or the supernatural.

"None of the above"
I can't think of any reason to believe in any of the options, nor do I see any evidence for any of them.

[Enmos]

I think Fraggle Rocker covered it all in Post #14

Agreed

[Billy T]

I also agree with all in Fraggle's post 14, but not that he has “said it all.” For example, his first paragraph contains:

"... we, alone, evolved something that completely falsifies science: a soul--a supernatural force that interacts with the natural universe. If this were true it would violate the fundamental principle underlying all science, that the natural universe is a closed system. Understandably, there is absolutely zero evidence that such a bizarre anomaly is true, but that doesn't stop people from embracing the cognitive dissonance of believing it anyway. Because of their human hubris. "We're so important that the natural laws of the universe don't apply to us." Yeah right! ..."

This is why I too reject the idea of a "soul" but the argument applies equally well to reject the idea that humans have genuine free will. Fraggle did not comment on that consequence.

For a long time I believed that humans are just very sophisticated biological machines and incapable of making any real choices as agents with genuine free will. (Being material, humans are controlled by the natural laws just like all matter is.) Now, for reason I have recently described in posts of this thread, I am not so sure that this follows from Fraggle's quote above, but I still tend to think that my belief that I have free will is just the most universal of all "human hubris."

What do you think about the falseness of “free will” as also following from your argument, Fraggle?

[Orleander]

I always wondered if heaven was another dimension and ghosts showed up where that one and ours rubbed against each other.
Not that I believe it, but I have wondered.

[Billy T]

To the four who believe in re-incarnation I note that there are many more humans alive now than even only 1000 years ago and each is living about twice as long, on a rough average as back then. Where did all the souls now tied to this vast hord of human bodies come from? Is God making new souls all the time? If so why does he need to re-cycle the already lived ones.

These and other questions seem to show that your belive is sadly lacking in mathematical consistency.

[Tnerb]

I think Fraggle Rocker covered it all in Post #14

Total mass hysteria there bud! :rolleyes:

He didn't cover everything at all. He is missing at the biggest areas of concern.

[John Connellan]

I believe it will be the same blackness we will (or won't) experience when we die as it was befre we were born*

*and no, I don't believe that the transition between world's erases our memory of the previous world :rolleyes:

[lightgigantic]

Do you believe in life after death?

Please describe exactly what you think happens after we die, and explain why you believe that.

Please also say whether you consider yourself religious or a believer in God or the supernatural.
in one sense, the process of changing bodies is something we already experience in this life

BG 2.13 As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.


the difference is that the spirit soul never undergoes change .... unlike the material body

SB 7.718 Just as the fruits and flowers of a tree in due course of time undergo six changes—birth, existence, growth, transformation, dwindling and then death—the material body, which is obtained by the spirit soul under different circumstances, undergoes similar changes. However, there are no such changes for the spirit soul.

The soul is unaffected by whatever body it happens to inhabit

SB 11.7.48 The various phases of one's material life, beginning with birth and culminating in death, are all properties of the body and do not affect the soul, just as the apparent waxing and waning of the moon does not affect the moon itself. Such changes are enforced by the imperceptible movements of time.

What determines the next material body is largely due to the activities of the mind

SB10.1.42 At the time of death, according to the thinking, feeling and willing of the mind, which is involved in fruitive activities, one receives a particular body. In other words, the body develops according to the activities of the mind. Changes of body are due to the flickering of the mind, for otherwise the soul could remain in its original, spiritual body.

so this could be any one of the numerous lifeforms that are available in this universe

Padma Purana - There are 900,000 species living in the water. There are 2,000,000 nonmoving living entities [sthävara] such as trees and plants. There are 1,100,000 species of insects and reptiles, and 1,000,000 species of birds. As far as quadrupeds are concerned, there are 3,000,000 varieties, and there are 400,000 human species.


If however one (properly) develops the desire to reciprocate with god, they can leave this repetitive cycle of repeated birth and death

BG 11.55 My dear Arjuna, he who engages in My pure devotional service, free from the contaminations of fruitive activities and mental speculation, he who works for Me, who makes Me the supreme goal of his life, and who is friendly to every living being—he certainly comes to Me.

while making spiritual progress is definitely easy, perfecting it is rare


BG 7.3 Out of many thousands among men, one may endeavor for perfection, and of those who have achieved perfection, hardly one knows Me in truth.

This is not because god makes it hard.
This is because we are commonly assailed by so many desires that we have to "finish with" before we can focus on spiritual desires

[swivel]

I think there is something really wrong with the title of this thread.

[Hapsburg]

Do you believe in life after death?
Sorta.

Please describe exactly what you think happens after we die, and explain why you believe that.
I do not know for certain, but I think that the spirits of all living things reincarnate after death, and that all living things have a spirit that exists both in a spiritual plane of existence and in the physical plane. However, I also think that the time elapsed between one's death and one's next life differs from person to person, and can range anywhere from a few seconds to a few thousand years. In that interval, a person's spirit could very well contact the living from the spiritual plane.

Please also say whether you consider yourself religious or a believer in god or the supernatural.
I consider myself religious, as a Solitary Wiccan, and I believe in multiple gods. However, I do not view any phenomenon as supernatural, as I believe that all things are natural phenomenon, regardless of how well it is explained in human terms.

[Fraggle Rocker]

This is why I too reject the idea of a "soul" but the argument applies equally well to reject the idea that humans have genuine free will. Fraggle did not comment on that consequence. For a long time I believed that humans are just very sophisticated biological machines and incapable of making any real choices as agents with genuine free will. (Being material, humans are controlled by the natural laws just like all matter is.) Now, for reason I have recently described in posts of this thread, I am not so sure that this follows from Fraggle's quote above, but I still tend to think that my belief that I have free will is just the most universal of all "human hubris." What do you think about the falseness of “free will” as also following from your argument, Fraggle?There's a thread on that subject on the Cosmology board and I think it's best left there. Not only will it take this one off topic, but I hate it when there are two parallel threads on the same subject with a lot of duplication. I think the question of free will is like string theory or the big bang: it's digging so deep into the structure of the universe that it reaches a place where physics, theoretical mathematics and philosophy begin to overlap.

As for the connection to human hubris, animals make decisions too. If free will is real, then they have it, although perhaps not as extensively as humans. To assert that we have free will but our curious, intelligent and communicative parrots don't... well then that would be "human hubris.":)

. . . . I do not view any phenomenon as supernatural, as I believe that all things are natural phenomenon, regardless of how well it is explained in human terms.On this website we adhere to a strict definition of the word "supernatural." It refers to forces, creatures and conditions that exist outside the natural universe. Things in the supernatural universe are not subject to the laws of nature, and in many religious paradigms they don't even seem to be bound by the abstract rules of logic.

So a "supernatural phenomenon" is one that originates outside the natural universe and therefore is not constrained by the natural laws that we have spent the last 500 years studying and codifying.

[Billy T]

There's a thread on that subject on the Cosmology board and I think it's best left there. ...Thanks. I did not know of it. Just made my first post in it:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2157081&postcount=30

[Hapsburg]

On this website we adhere to a strict definition of the word "supernatural."
You mean you, and some others, adhere to a strict definition.
I have a much looser look at the words "supernatural" and "natural".
Though, by your definition, the things I believe in probably would be seen as supernatural or paranormal; just remember that your opinions and views aren't the only valid ones in the world.

[Michael]

No I do not believe in life after death. The "I" ceases to exist.

That said:
- There is a possibility that there is and I continue.
- There is a possibility that the whole sequence of events leading to "me" happens again and thus am "I" :)
- There is a possibility that there are multiple universes and other "me" very nearly or identical to "me" - maybe an infinity of me?
- There is a possibility that I will not "die". However, I think the "I" that is me will even in this life cease to exist. Looking back a decade ago or a decade before that, I already have...

[Enmos]

No I do not believe in life after death. The "I" ceases to exist.

That said:
- There is a possibility that there is and I continue.
- There is a possibility that the whole sequence of events leading to "me" happens again and thus am "I" :)
- There is a possibility that there are multiple universes and other "me" very nearly or identical to "me" - maybe an infinity of me?
- There is a possibility that I will not "die". However, I think the "I" that is me will even in this life cease to exist. Looking back a decade ago or a decade before that, I already have...

I think points 2 to 4 can be dismissed immediately.
2. It won't be you. If you clone yourself the clone wouldn't be you. Environment/experience determine who you are as much as genetics do, maybe even more so.
Even if the 1 in infinity chance takes place that in 500.000 years or so someone gets born with the exact genetic make-up and with the exact same environment, resulting in an I that is the same as yours is now, it still wouldn't be you. His "I" would perhaps be the same as your "I", but that's it. He wouldn't know about you.
3. See 2.
4. Everything ends.

Point 1 is unprovable but just silly.
When you die.. you die, no second chances ;)

[cosmictraveler]

Point 1 is unprovable but just silly.
When you die.. you die, no second chances

But they revived me when I died so there is a second chance in some cases.:p

[swivel]

2. It won't be you. If you clone yourself the clone wouldn't be you. Environment/experience determine who you are as much as genetics do, maybe even more so.

No, not more so. Every study that takes heredity and environment into account (usually "adopting" studies and "separated twin" studies) show AT MOST a .25 correlation with environment and AT LEAST a .50 correlation with genetics.

So, you are more than half your genes, and no more than a quarter of your environment.

Back to the thread title: The definition of "Death" is "Absence of Life", so can we please argue about whether or not we believe in Death, and not whether or not some of you believe in Life after Death? If you go on living forever, that wasn't Death that happened. It was something else.

[Enmos]

But they revived me when I died so there is a second chance in some cases.:p

Then you haven't really died yet ;)

[Enmos]

No, not more so. Every study that takes heredity and environment into account (usually "adopting" studies and "separated twin" studies) show AT MOST a .25 correlation with environment and AT LEAST a .50 correlation with genetics.

So, you are more than half your genes, and no more than a quarter of your environment.
That's what I always thought, but people always keep pointing out I'm wrong so I thought I'd stay on the safe side :shrug:

[cosmictraveler]

Then you haven't really died yet ;)

But they told me I had died and was dead for over 3 minutes. How is it I wasn't dead then?

[lightgigantic]

- There is a possibility that I will not "die". However, I think the "I" that is me will even in this life cease to exist. Looking back a decade ago or a decade before that, I already have...
legally you still have the same "I", so something appears to have persisted ....

[lightgigantic]

I think points 2 to 4 can be dismissed immediately.
why?


4. Everything ends.
in empiricism, everything has an "end" ..... but then empiricism is unable to come to grips with "everything"

:D

[Michael]

If there were two "me" living simultaneously in alternate universes and we both had the exact same neural cytoarchitecture and undergo the same experiences - are we the same person?

If my body dies and I am "beamed" into another universe and into another body with all my memories - is that me in a new body or is it someone else?

[Enmos]

But they told me I had died and was dead for over 3 minutes. How is it I wasn't dead then?

You obviously wasn't brain dead. You heart probably just stopped beating for 3 minutes.

[Enmos]

why?
I think I explained why.

in empiricism, everything has an "end" ..... but then empiricism is unable to come to grips with "everything"

:D
Unlike.. what ? Religion ? LOL

[Enmos]

If there were two "me" living simultaneously in alternate universes and we both had the exact same neural cytoarchitecture and undergo the same experiences - are we the same person?
No.

If my body dies and I am "beamed" into another universe and into another body with all my memories - is that me in a new body or is it someone else?
It's you in a new body.

[lightgigantic]

If there were two "me" living simultaneously in alternate universes and we both had the exact same neural cytoarchitecture and undergo the same experiences - are we the same person?

If my body dies and I am "beamed" into another universe and into another body with all my memories - is that me in a new body or is it someone else?
what if your body is simply a vessel, and the self and the body remain characteristically distinct? (So you could be beamed into the body of a rat embreyo. say?)

There's the issue about whether our mind/body is the essence of our self or merely a reflection of it

[lightgigantic]

I think I explained why.
where?


Unlike.. what ? Religion ? LOL
yes, certainly more capable than calling upon empiricism to validate "everything" ... despite a predominant consciousness amongst empiricists that they have better ideas for the universe than god
:D

[Hapsburg]

But they told me I had died and was dead for over 3 minutes. How is it I wasn't dead then?
There's a difference between actually being dead and being clinically dead.

[Enmos]

where?



yes, certainly more capable than calling upon empiricism to validate "everything" ... despite a predominant consciousness amongst empiricists that they have better ideas for the universe than god
:D

What does God have to do with religion ? :confused:
Fantasy isn't really the thing to validate anything with.

Where ? Reread that post.

[lightgigantic]

What does God have to do with religion ?
:m:?

Fantasy isn't really the thing to validate anything with.
yet you want us to believe that you are familiar with all religious claims sufficiently enough to have credibility when you deem them as fantasy
:rolleyes:

Where ? Reread that post.
golly
I didn't mention religion yet you somehow took the liberty of mentioning it


:o

[Billy T]

I see currently four think: "Dead people remain able to watch their loved ones from the "other side". "


Does "fact" that your mother is watching you (or ex-spouse if dead) cramp your style, especially your sexual behavior?

[visceral_instinct]

I believe in life after death.....










in that you can fart or defecate, and your fingernails will grow for a while or so I've heard..

[Vkothii]

What the hell is "death", is it when I see an animal that isn't moving or breathing and with flies all over it?

Sorry, I can't conceive of this thing unless I look outside myself at "dead things"; I can't, somehow, manage to connect this external reality with any internal pov, that includes that internal pov and the eternal "reality".

What do I do now?

[Fraggle Rocker]

What the hell is "death", is it when I see an animal that isn't moving or breathing and with flies all over it?That's not an animal. It's the matter that used to be organized in such a way as to comprise an animal. Now it's just a pile of rotting tissue. When it's a human we call it a "corpse," but that's just a polite word for a rotting pile of tissue like "breast" is a polite word for a mammary gland.

"Death" is the cessation of life. It's something that happens and then it's over. It's not a condition. What we call "dead animals" are not animals in a certain condition, they're piles of rotting tissue. The same goes for what we call "dead people."

After you die, you're not "dead." You're not anything. You don't exist. Rather than saying "He is dead," it would be better to say "He has died." To say "He is dead" makes it sound like he still exists and is merely in a different state than the last time we saw him.

This problem is a linguistic accident. "Dead" was originally the past participle of "to die." Some verbs used to form the perfect tense using "be" as the auxiliary verb instead of "have." We still have a few archaic instances of that, such as "Joy to the world, the Lord is come," instead of ". . . has come." So to say "He is dead" was merely the grammatically correct way of saying what we now would phrase as "He has died." Somewhere along the way we began using the past tense of die, "died," as the past participle, normalizing it to the standard English paradigm, and we began using "have" as the auxiliary verb for all perfect tenses, except in Biblical quotes. So we began saying "He has died" instead of "He is dead." But at the same time we began to regard "dead" as a condition rather than a completed action, so "He is dead" came to mean "He is in a special condition that people achieve after they have died."

There is no such condition, this is just a fantasy provided by religion. To say "He is dead" is to unconsciously buy into that fantasy. It's better to say "He has died."Sorry, I can't conceive of this thing unless I look outside myself at "dead things"; I can't, somehow, manage to connect this external reality with any internal pov, that includes that internal pov and the eternal "reality".That's because there is no internal POV. You have to exist in order to have an internal POV. Death is the cessation of existence.

We do indeed talk about "dead things" as a shorthand way of referring to rotting piles of tissue that used to be "live things." It's just another way of saying "meat" or "offal," depending on whether the culture you belong to considers it edible. In America a sheep's stomach is offal, but in Scotland it's meat. In both places it's a piece of a "dead thing."

We also sometimes use "dead things" to refer to inanimate objects that were never alive to start with. I think that just makes more confusion so I don't talk that way. "Non-living things" is much more precise and scientific.What do I do now?I don't understand. What are you trying to accomplish? Death will happen whether or not you understand it. Once you cease to exist, none of this will matter to you anymore because there will be no more "you."

If you're trying to understand death, it's rather simple: First you're there, then you're not. Like a house that's been knocked down by a wrecking ball. The bricks are still there, but the organization of the bricks that made them comprise a house is gone. Your tissue will still be there, but the organization of the tissue that made it comprise a human being will be gone.

When you die, you're not "dead." You're nothing. Literally.

[Vkothii]

Thanks, Fraggle, that's a quite reasoned exposition, on the very subject.
Although your response to my closing query, an attempt to rationalise this thing you say cannot have an internal point of reference, in essence speaks to the (mind-boggling) factoid that "we are information".

Because when we "die", it's the same amount of information, but now it's being processed differently, is all.

[Billy T]

Very interesting informative post Fraggle.

You probably know already but speaking of "dead things" I think it was Shaw (a strident vegetarian) who defined a fork as a common tool, used to place pieces of dead things in the mouth.

[Billy T]

...speaks to the (mind-boggling) factoid that "we are information". ...My POV exactly. We are ONLY information.* This MAY (by making us non-material) open an escape from the control of natural laws over our every thought and action. (I.e. may make Free Will possible without either violation of the natural laws or postulating a "soul."): For for more details, and evidence supporting this non-standard POV. See:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1294496&postcount=52

It is a long read, about 8 pages if printed.

-------------
*I also hold the strange POV that we cease to exist whenever in deep dreamless sleep.

[jmpet]

Do you believe in life after death?

Please describe exactly what you think happens after we die, and explain why you believe that.

Please also say whether you consider yourself religious or a believer in God or the supernatural.

I experienced life after death on 10/29/04. I died and was shown the complete afterlife and the big picture.

I'll start a new thread to answer questions.

[LostInThought7]

I believe that after I die, I will immediately be reborn into a new body with a new imperfect ego (keeping my same "spirit", my pure consciousness). This will happen for all eternity, so that I may never again feel the pure meaninglessness of existing as an omnimax being. So that I can feel hope and terror and love.


However, I'm not allowed to believe this, by definition, so my ego kicks in, and I'm just another Atheist who believes that when we die and our brains (the seat of our egos) rots, then our egos cease to exist.

[Doreen]

Which religions are we comparing.

[krazedkat]

I don't believe in a LIFE after death, only an existance. You wouldn't be alive physically, only mentally.

[shaman_]

I don't believe in a LIFE after death, only an existance. You wouldn't be alive physically, only mentally.You will have no brain. How can you exist mentally?