Consciousness after "death"

And what if there are "subtle"(etheric,astral) bodies,that are "duplicate" of physical bodies,and have their own brain?Then maybe they can survive after he physical body/brain is dead...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What if there are?
They'd still have to have some method of affecting the physical which would make them detectable.
So far we have not done so.
And if they had "their own brain" wouldn't that make them separate entities altogether? I.e. not "our" consciousnesses?
Plus it would still leave the question "where did they get their consciousness from?"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree with you.Don't ge me wrong - I'm not the proponent of "subtle bodies",Im just saying that this is the popular concept.I've even read the opinion that such "bodies" even could be reconciled with materialism.That "astral bodies" could just evolve in parralel process to our evolution from the lower animals.I personally don't see how it is possible...Then there are theories about "wave particles","enegry fields" that may form such a bodies...but where is solid scientific evidence?As far as I know,mainstream science does away with these concepts so far

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then I would suggest you not use phrases such as "you again mistake...", for to identify and claim something as a mistake suggests that you are in the possession of knowledge to the contrary.

Beg to differ.

Welcome to the requirement for repeatability and peer-review built into the scientific community.
It is the science community more than anyone that understand about truth... and how it can be/is relative and evasive.
Others accept truth when told it... science tends to require something more than an appeal to authority.

Not unsubstantiated. Sure, it is unproven but it at least starts with evidence available and progresses rationally, rather than brining in the requirement, say, of an unobserved, unprovable concept such as the "non-material"/"immaterial".

First define "love" and we'll move on from there, shall we?

I consider the possibilities and go with the most rational.
And if you think my logic is flawed, please point out the flaw.

Yes, you're a martyr, and somewhat disrespectful of the people you are trying to claim yourself among. At present all I am reading is rather naive ideas that don't address any of the scientific discoveries in the realm being discussed, nor address any of the implications of your ideas (matter/non-matter interaction, for example) but will undoubtedly say "God works in mysterious ways" or some such.

The study of consciousness IS science.
There is of course the philosophical investigation into the same subject which can help with understanding - but to do so it must take account of the science behind it.
As others have said on this site many times, philosophy alone can answer nothing.

And there you go again spouting unsubstantiated drivel.
To say something "cannot be" is rather absolute... if you meant "can not currently be" then you would be closer to the position although you are still seemingly in denial or ignorant of the science in this area.

Yep - you said it and worded it as an undisputed fact, despite your "(to me)".
What evidence do you have to support your position?
Or will you admit you have none, and are reliant on some authority and faith?

If you re-read the post you will see that YOU are limiting the analogy, and if you allow for computers that are complex enough to run themselves... then perhaps you will see the weakness I perceive in your analogy.

I've snipped the rest of your post to get to the key point as I see it...

Wow - after all this you finally come to the crux of your actual position... once we have blown away the chaff.

First: what evidence to you have that consciousness cannot spawn out of nothing? The evidence we have is that 5 billion years ago there was no life on planet Earth. 5 billion years later there is life, and it is conscious. Hmmm - any other evidence for where this consciousness came from? So we have nothing... then consciousness. Wow... surely it didn't spawn out of nothing???

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Second: you "choose to believe". Well, now you finally admit that all have is belief. As I said: unsubstantiated speculation.


So... let's explore your position with a few simple questions:
What is consciousness?
What is it composed / made of?
Where does it reside?
How does it interact with the material brain?
How is it detected?

Let's start with those.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Are you now defining life as consciousness?

That's a bit silly don't you think? How then do you measure consciousness?
And what if our measurements are inaccurate and the system/concept it fallacious in that it would exclude inanimate objects from having consciousness.

 

Perhaps the information from the brain that gets globally bound to “surface on the mind” becomes the ‘reality’—the consciousness observation.

This is kind of like the “it from bit” of the quantum realm in which the bit (the information) becomes the ‘it’ (the collapsed state of the actual, realism having become), although the quantum has no pre-existing properties, making the outcome random.

The brain has a pre-existing state that must correlate with what’s witnessed in consciousness. So, consciousness and what’s in it somehow becomes from the information in the brain, that is, what thoughts, actions, and feelings that are of the instant, this all then repeating on and on, the consciousness states, too, becoming part of our repertoire for future use.

We don’t feel the brain’s systems operating at their pre and mid stages. It would be a mess of confusing data. Anyway, it all breaks down to electronics, bio, and chemicals. Consciousness may just be an epiphenomenon of billions of neurons doing the true and actual work of analysis, only being able to inform us a few hundred milliseconds after the neuronal analysis is nearly done, making us seem as mere tourists along for the ride, but the global whole is then taken back in and incorporated pretty much instantly and so it can influence immediate and further analysis and action and so on.

 

Until humans fire up a simulation of the human mind's physical structure (an endeavour scientists are embarking upon) we will not know for sure?

Is this the best way to acquire evidence for the possible participation of the quantum in the cognitive?

 

A question:
This consciousness after "death", it retains the "old" memory?

 

No, when you start a subsequent lifetime, you generally have no recollection of the prior one. However some people claim to have some recollection of a previous lifetime.

 

If I lose my memory then I'm dead.

 

No. Your mumbo jumbo aura is left intact maaaan. For all the good it'll do ya!

 

If you can't remember previous lives and your body rots or burns, what's the point in being comforted by your 'consciousness' living on?

 

Is your consciousness without your memories really yours?

How are new consciousnesses acquired? from bacteria? Or is there a finite amount? What happens if half the population of the world dies? Where do all the spirits go?

What a load of ballcocks (though I hope not)

 

Implying that your memories are you. If you are going to say things like that then you are answering a different question. The question in this case should be "Who am I?". If you would be dead if you lost your memories then that would make you the entire collection of your memories and conscious thoughts. Does this mean that you are not the body in which you are transported? When I say you, what am I referring to? Are you really your Ego?

 

I think you've read into it too much...

 

The comment didn't explain anything, there is no outstanding evidence or viewpoint expressed within the statement and thus I am left only to what I can deduce. I don't think you have thought about it enough. Also, I am fairly certain that not explaining yourself is against the rules.

 

Consciousness is the activity a vast interconnected and co-ordinated matrix of physical phenomena, not a thing in the world in the same sense that a moon or an apple is a thing. Once the conditions necessary for the activity are no longer present (temporal duration, organic form, cross-referencing environments within and beyond the organism) it is simply a statement of fact that it no longer exists. Although there definitely is a subjective experience of existence that persists a priori of scientific observations, this quality is co-dependent with fragile and specific physical conditions within observable reality. It cannot persist independently of them. To say consciousness survives death is to make a self-contradicting statement. Anything resembling consciousness that persists after death would by definition be something entirely alien and incomprehensible. Not anything that could be remotely conflated with what is experienced in the here and now.

 

There is one big conscience suffering from split personality.
So everyone has the same consciousness but with a different personality.
So there was no "death", only loss or the appearance of a new personality.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It is a practical observation, valid for me.
If I lose my memory, for instance total amnesia, I feel like I have died.
If conscience loses memory after death then for me is the end.
If you want, you can emit theories that after death, I reincarnate or I live in heaven / hell, I do not care anymore.

 

I think there is more proof consciousness is not destroyed after death than there is for it to be destroyed. We say information can never be destroyed so we are forced to validate the fact of its existence without a mechanism holding it in place. Point being, it has the potential to travel elsewhere seeing as it is just fluctuations of electrical signals inscribed into a body, but how or where it goes is not a currently known process. It could stay with the body and follow decomposition, but the information should still be "somewhere". The subconscious mind of any individual is far stronger an insight into this type of matter than what science can prove as of yet.

 

It depends on how you're defining "information". In this case it's the pattern or sequence of symbols. Which can be destroyed.

So on the one hand you're saying it can travel, and on the other you're admitting you don't know how it does so? :shrug:

Really? How so?