Consciousness after "death"

Good facts and good wording.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no evidence, let alone proof, that any person's consciousness remains after death. If you think otherwise, please feel free to share the proof or even just the evidence?

A clay brick will decompose into dust... but no energy nor information will be lost. But the brick does not remain.

As it is with the brick, so it is with consciousness.

And your substance for this claim, other than wishful thinking?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Highly conjectural tackling of a possible process:

If information (of previous position, allignments of atoms or smaller) is stored at a quantum or smaller level,consciousness would still require an arena in which to stabilise itself.

If it is possible for this info to transfer itself as a whole into ajoining matter in a unified shifting or phasing then it could possibly then move through matter. But this still doesn't explain how this consciousness could function in anyway, like in out of body experiences or somesuch.

This mobile imprint on the quantum would however be of an invincibly unique structure that could not be transferred into a different body of a smaller size, so reincarnation would be out.

Only question then remains about where would it go? And would it be able to stand up to the rigours of a free existence within the universe?

Passing through another mind/body would totally mess with its structure I would have thought.

Anyone else ready to take a stab at a plausible mode of extension after death?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I already did

one flaw... consciousness is not like a brick, unless you head is filled with them. Its more like a text messaging system where I can delete my inbox but the cops can still pull up the company records with enough probable cause. I'm not saying your still thinking after death (unless that's part of your beliefs). I'm just saying that if you regenerate the deoxygenated brain in some magical futuristic world and shock someone back into life we might have the tools to show better what is comprised of these anomalous electrical signals known as "consciousness."

 

Doesn't that negate your claim?

Hardly a valid argument.

 

Not valid until we get stem cells to fully regenerate every cell of our body... Then we could ask ourselves questions like the one I just posed.

It only appears to negate the original claim. You have to differentiate between the death of the body and the "unknown" which is the death of the consciousness which is in question.

 

Appears to?
You claimed that there is evidence that a consciousness remains after death.
And that that post showed this evidence.
The post states: "The most he got was blinking eyes a couple of seconds after the beheading" and THAT only because stimuli were applied. What sort of stimuli? Electrical? The sort that would trigger muscles a la Galvani's frogs' legs?
How does it provide evidence of consciousness?

What grounds are there for such a differentiation?

 

This is not proof at all, unless you can show that the person was actually dead while still being conscious?
From the experiment there are two possibilities I can see:
1. The head was not yet dead... just the prognosis for a long and happy life was rather limited

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

2. The blinking was instinctive muscle action with no consciousness behind it.

You'll need to do much better to convince anyone that the experiment was "proof" that there was consciousness in a dead head.

But it is. A "brick" is really just a pattern of activity - albeit one that requires neutrons and protons and electrons to remain reasonably static.
But what separates the brick from the pile of dust is adherence to that pattern.
Consciousness is just a far more active pattern, of electrons etc.

Sure, but this isn't the same as "consciousness after death"... this is the restarting of a consciousness in a living body.
It is the reinstating of a pattern of activity within the substrate of the brain-matter.

"Consciousness after death" implies the pattern exists (and operates) without the substrate.

 

What happens to consciousness when you're in a coma?

 

External stimuli like shouting their name or banging on a desk.

Written and placed in stone by the most enlightened group on Earth in the Bardo Thodol

"The Liberation Through Hearing During the Intermediate State differentiates the intermediate state between lives into three bardos:

The chikhai bardo or "bardo of the moment of death", which features the experience of the "clear light of reality", or at least the nearest approximation of which one is spiritually capable.

The chonyid bardo or "bardo of the experiencing of reality", which features the experience of visions of various Buddha forms (or, again, the nearest approximations of which one is capable).

The sidpa bardo or "bardo of rebirth", which features karmically impelled hallucinations which eventually result in rebirth. (Typically imagery of men and women passionately entwined.)"

 

Source please.

What does "most enlightened" mean? How do you prove it?
What you actually have is unproven ramblings that aren't supported by science.

 

But he probably isn't anywhere near the nervous wreck that most others of us are ...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Most enlightened means sat on their ass long enough to actually take the time and think about what they put into writing instead of rushing for proof and validation like some kind of giddy school girl whose BF cheated on her.

Not supported by science... I guess it's a good thing this is philosophy so we can discuss the "scientific" merit of our belief systems and instantly discount them as false. That just sounds a little harsh, but true nevertheless. Who cares if almost every near death experience is akin to many of the stories told by the unscientific book found only in caves with "barbarians".

 

With comments like that I can see why you'd consider them "most enlightened".

So you're of the opinion that philosophy doesn't require validation? Or that science doesn't doesn't provide validation?

More to the point would be: why are they so similar? Maybe something to do with the fact that they're all written by people with a human psychology, hmmm?

 

Decapitation in rats: latency to unconsciousness and the 'wave of death'.

There's a time when which the neurons run out of ATP and can no longer prevent ECa2+ from occurring (seen as a violent wave of Ca2+ induced depolarization). At that point the brain is no longer conscious and the "person" is clinically dead. And that is it. "YOU" no longer exist from that point onwards.

 

they need time only for thought, while the depressed suffering minorities of the world struggle with what we have turned life into as opposed to the "natural" world, but these are only differing ways for the time not irreconcilable differences to made with ones life choices.

It's a mark against validation not philosophy or science in the given reference.

That seems like more evidence for truth than fiction unless you under the assumption that some people are undesirable or their opinions over life and death do not affect your beliefs.

 

And you don't see any need for validation?

How so? Since we all share (to a great extent) a common psychology then our fictions would share a similarity, no?

I'm not at all sure where this (undesirability) comes from but I can state with certainty that some people's opinions have no effect whatsoever on my beliefs regarding life and death.

 

Not in this lifetime.

Your saying a near death experience is fiction?

So if someone chose to believe in reincarnation it would not affect you opinion of them or their beliefs?

 

Interesting.

I'm saying that the interpretation is fiction. I'm not denying that people have nearly died (or, to use the vernacular, "died and come back"), but what they experienced is subject to interpretation, no?
DMT, something that is naturally released in the body when under stress, has been shown to cause hallucinations that conform to NDEs.

That's not quite what you said is it?

What someone else thinks about life and death doesn't, in general, affect what I think about it.
However, should I encounter someone who holds a belief in, as per your example, reincarnation I'd be interested in knowing WHY they believe that.
And what evidence they have, etc.

 

And why couldn't enlightenment come from proper control of dopamine receptors. Awake, asleep, or on drugs every time of day it's all about control. Interpretation is never fiction it is the only way that our conscious self knows what any person is attempting to communicate. If their is a psychological reason to better your life at the expense of some of your beliefs would you not take the chance. If it would make you closer to your fellow man would you not wander the path for a time. If it were true would you not wonder who you were in a past life. Would you idol at the past characters for what they have made todays society, or stand up and make a personality of your own.

That is all multiple personalities are. An attempt to become what characters one has learned.