Difference between life and death

Musiconomist

I dont believe in a God or anything like that, but I am interested in what happens after we die, as I assume, is everyone else. To me it seems that the difference between a living body and a dead one is just a lack of function ie blood not pumping, brain not functioning, like a computer that has been unplugged.

If this is true, does it mean that we are pretty much "natural" machines? That would kind of obliterate any notion of a soul, which I also dont believe in (but I think is a nice, comforting idea). What does this imply for the nature of life? The more I think about it, I believee living things are not particularly special, and are the result of a natural process.

Where does that leave us? Are we genetic freaks, in that we are the only animals "designed"/programemd to try to understand everything? Or is that a result of us being inventive and creative? Are we fated to never understand our existence, and never cease trying to?

sashafierce

This post has been deleted.

Joe1919

sashafierce wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In the Symposium, Plato argues that a sort of immortality can be achieved through love.
http://hompi.sogang.ac.kr/anthony/Classics/Diotima.htm

One's life is not wasted in the sense that one may have a sort of immortality by contribution to knowledge or art or love of one children or humanity in general.

Richard Dawkins idea of 'memes' as well as 'genes' has some similarities.

I suppose a Buddhist could claim that one's karma has a sort of immortality.

In the Christian tradition, it is also said that the 'sins of the father shall be visited upon the sons', so I presume one's good can also be visited on the next generation etc.

Musiconomist

Joe1919 wrote: »

In the Symposium, Plato argues that a sort of immortality can be achieved through love.
http://hompi.sogang.ac.kr/anthony/Classics/Diotima.htm

One's life is not wasted in the sense that one may have a sort of immortality by contribution to knowledge or art or love of one children or humanity in general.

Richard Dawkins idea of 'memes' as well as 'genes' has some similarities.

I suppose a Buddhist could claim that one's karma has a sort of immortality.

In the Christian tradition, it is also said that the 'sins of the father shall be visited upon the sons', so I presume one's good can also be visited on the next generation etc.

I think any vision of existence/consciousness, being eternal are probably unlikely. Nobody knows what happens after death, we can only speculate. But as far as I can see there is no basis to believe in any everlasting existence.

To Sasha,

I find the idea that we exist in the now and that we "end" at some point quite liberating, actually. It is sad that we leave our loved ones, of course. But, I think the fact they made such an impact on us means that they had good lives, and mattered, at least to those who knew them. What more could you want from life? A true tragedy would be to die unmourned. That to me would be a wasted life.

Personally, it made me appreciate things in my life a lot more when I realized that I will leave everyone at some stage. Still a very scary thought, though.

Joe1919

Musiconomist wrote: »

I think any vision of existence/consciousness, being eternal are probably unlikely. Nobody knows what happens after death, we can only speculate. But as far as I can see there is no basis to believe in any everlasting existence.

You are perhaps right if one takes a narrow and very personal view of the 'self' and of consciousness. But if can take a wider view (and perhaps let go of our attachment to our self), one can realise that we all are part of nature or the cosmos, and hence have no fear of death.

Indeed, to some extent, we die every day as our consciousness is constantly changing and we are not the same person as we were yesterday.

It could be argued that we share in and contribute to some type of 'collective consciousness' and that this is eternal or will continue until the world is destroyed.
It has been speculated that a new cosciousness may again re-emerge. e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return

sashafierce

This post has been deleted.

roosh

hey musiconomist, interesting thread.

just to echo some of what Joe said, Buddhism and other spiritual traditions (perhaps even Christianity as taught by Christ) point to the fact that what we think we are is not necessarily what we are - and that isn't in the sense that we are souls occupying human bodies.

The traditions say - but don't accept it on that basis, examine it and question it - that we are conditioned to believe that we are something other than we actually are. Generally we are conditioned to identify with the thoughts in our head, and we tend to believe that that is who/what we are.

We generally tend to see ourselves as individuals, separate and existing apart from everything else, although interacting with everything else. But that isn't necessarily the case, there is no separately existing entity, because there is no point at which "the universe" ends and "you" begin, we just think that way as a result of the incorrect interpretation of our perception, and because we have been conditioned to think that way - it's a bit like perceiving the world to be flat, but more fundamental than that.

Essentially we are to the universe what leaves are to a tree; the leaves on the tree are not separate from the tree, they are the tree, as much as the branches and the roots, and the tree is the leaves as much as it is the roots and branches; the tree doesn't necessarily die when the leaves die; and when the leaves "die" they don't necessarily die, yes they cease to have the form called a "leaf" but when they fall to the ground their form changes again and ultimately turns back into "life" by nourishing the tree.

"We", "you" and "I", were never actually born, we are simply the manifestation of changing form i.e. everything we are now existed in a different form before, we are just a stage in the overall process; our form will change again. "We" weren't born, so "we" can't die.


Now, that all sounds very fluffy, and eastern mystical, and on the surface it is, but as the tibetan saying goes, there is a difference between understanding it, realizing the truth of it and being liberated from the attachment to the incorrect perception we have of ourselves.

Pete M.

1 and 0

Cork boy 55

Your body is a machine which your genes use to replicate themselves
Replicate your genes and you will have achieved your goal as a machine then die and turn to compost.

roosh

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Your body is a machine which your genes use to replicate themselves
Replicate your genes and you will have achieved your goal as a machine then die and turn to compost.

is all matter not potentially a floating membrane in 11-Dimensional space?

Amirani

Your whole body and consciousness is just a specific collection of atoms. If you take time as being infinite then surely it's reasonable to think that the correct situation and indeed the specific combination of atoms will repeat leading to you being reborn. There then is the question over whether the consciousness that is born is your own or merely a clone. Of course the assumption that allows this theory is that time is infinite, is it?

Musiconomist

niallsparky wrote: »

Your whole body and consciousness is just a specific collection of atoms. If you take time as being infinite then surely it's reasonable to think that the correct situation and indeed the specific combination of atoms will repeat leading to you being reborn. There then is the question over whether the consciousness that is born is your own or merely a clone. Of course the assumption that allows this theory is that time is infinite, is it?

Nah, I disagree with the above. Even if you clone every cell in my body, the result will not be me. Or more accurately, will not be me for very long.

As to time, it may be infinite, but there will come a point where it becomes irrelevant. When all the suns have burned out and the universe becomes uninhabitable, what difference will it make?

Sure, what difference does it make, anyway?

Musiconomist

roosh wrote: »

is all matter not potentially a floating membrane in 11-Dimensional space?

To quote Homer, "What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind."

18AD

Musiconomist wrote: »

If this is true, does it mean that we are pretty much "natural" machines? That would kind of obliterate any notion of a soul, which I also dont believe in (but I think is a nice, comforting idea). What does this imply for the nature of life? The more I think about it, I believee living things are not particularly special, and are the result of a natural process.

What do you mean "natural" machines? A lot of the responses on here seem to think that people are a collection of "dead" material, or atoms, or stuff. If this is the case you either accept that living things are actually dead or that the stuff that makes us up is alive, i.e. atoms. Or you must admit that there is a change that takes place when this dead matter becomes a living thing and is therefore something more than just an arrangement of dead stuff.

Also, I agree that living things are not in any way special from all the other things within the universe, but I don't think this as a person. This is a cold sort of attitude that seems totally removed from being a living person. I don't think you would care to say that your mother is not special for instance.

Where does that leave us? Are we genetic freaks, in that we are the only animals "designed"/programemd to try to understand everything? Or is that a result of us being inventive and creative? Are we fated to never understand our existence, and never cease trying to?

We may be designed to understand things, and this may be a inherently human thing. But I think we take it too far. The universe isn't there to be understood. Although that doesn't mean you can't try or even succeed. But we can become aware of this and just stop trying to understand it.

I think as people we are taught to have reasons for things. You are always asked why you are doing something, in fact to be a moral agent it may be a requisite that you have a motive. You never needed a reason to be alive, in fact you had no choice in the matter. There is then the existentialist claim that the contingency of existence actually gives us no reason to live. And I think they are right, but that doesn't mean you should end your life. Life doens't need a reason. It just is.

Red Hand

18AD wrote:

Also, I agree that living things are not in any way special from all the other things within the universe, but I don't think this as a person. This is a cold sort of attitude that seems totally removed from being a living person. I don't think you would care to say that your mother is not special for instance.

It's one way of looking at things. I mean, people happily eat turkey and chicken every day and don't think about the welfare of the animals they eat. Likewise, many of us don't care about the less fortunate of our fellow people....those that starve every day and have horrifying diseases. We choose to see things a certain way.

I don't actively think of such things (probably like most people). I don't think of myself or my loved ones as bags of organs. Or as stardust. Even though we ultimately are that.

I guess I cannot get over the fact the way that the atoms that make me up...the millions and billions and trillions of them, result in something that thinks and breaths and is capable of so much. That I am arranged thus and function in such a way. That probably I was once partly a star or a dinosaur (even just an atom's worth)

Back on topic, I cannot really fathom that someone can "be" in one instant and "not be" in another. For whatever reason. Somebody running around one day, the next, it is sudden adult death syndrome. Most of the atoms that make up that person are in the same place as they were yesterday but now, he/she ceases to "be".

Or when "death" ensues and you see your loved one on a mortuary table. Some/most of their cells are still alive, but what made them "them" is gone...it's a difficult thing to fathom. To all purposes they look the same, no difference but now are gone.

18AD

Red Hand wrote: »

Or as stardust. Even though we ultimately are that.

I guess I cannot get over the fact the way that the atoms that make me up...the millions and billions and trillions of them, result in something that thinks and breaths and is capable of so much. That I am arranged thus and function in such a way. That probably I was once partly a star or a dinosaur (even just an atom's worth)

I think you're right in saying that the stuff we are made of is stardust. But not that we are stardust, or even atoms. To say this is to totally neglect what we perceive at our ordinary level. If you describe water as simply some atoms, you miss out on ice or clouds or puddles. None of these things are in the atom and you won't find them there. Similarly with this oversimplification of people as just being atoms. Yes we are made of atoms but are not atoms.

Back on topic, I cannot really fathom that someone can "be" in one instant and "not be" in another. For whatever reason. Somebody running around one day, the next, it is sudden adult death syndrome. Most of the atoms that make up that person are in the same place as they were yesterday but now, he/she ceases to "be".

Or when "death" ensues and you see your loved one on a mortuary table. Some/most of their cells are still alive, but what made them "them" is gone...it's a difficult thing to fathom. To all purposes they look the same, no difference but now are gone.

Maybe, as I mentioned, it is exactly that the behaviour of those atoms has changed. Not their physical properties.