What happens after we die?

Artful_Badger · 16-12-2013 01:45AM

King_Prawn wrote: »

That's a fallacious argument. If you had have said "we can assume" rather than "we can logically conclude" you would have been safe, however just because the minds operations are undoubtedly related to brain activity does not mean that's all the mind is and all we are. It's possible, perhaps not probable, that native to the biological organism is in fact some sort of spiritual essence which is not what we would call physical. You may say that because there's no direct empirical evidence of this it's a non-issue, however that does not mean we can safely conclude that the mystery of life is an open and shut case. Contemplative traditions maintain that it is possible to realise one's essence as being not localized to the physical organism. That the rational mind can fully grasp reality is just as much an irrational belief as any religious one.

I think you're confusing "Logical conclusion" with "Definitive conclusion". Of course I cant know for certain anything is the case but I can draw a logical conclusion based on what is known and in this case that leads to the mind being a product of the brain and thus simply not exiting when the brain ceases to function.

Dave! · 16-12-2013 01:52AM

King_Prawn wrote: »

That's a fallacious argument. If you had have said "we can assume" rather than "we can logically conclude" you would have been safe, however just because the minds operations are undoubtedly related to brain activity does not mean that's all the mind is and all we are. It's possible, perhaps not probable, that native to the biological organism is in fact some sort of spiritual essence which is not what we would call physical. You may say that because there's no direct empirical evidence of this it's a non-issue, however that does not mean we can safely conclude that the mystery of life is an open and shut case. Contemplative traditions maintain that it is possible to realise one's essence as being not localized to the physical organism. That the rational mind can fully grasp reality is just as much an irrational belief as any religious one.

Why do we care about what contemplative traditions maintain?

King_Prawn · 16-12-2013 01:52AM

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I think you're confusing "Logical conclusion" with "Definitive conclusion". Of course I cant know for certain anything is the case but I can draw a logical conclusion based on what is known and in this case that leads to the mind being a product of the brain and thus simply not exiting when the brain ceases to function.

A logical conclusion means you're taking all known data into consideration. We don't know that consciousness is dependent on the brain, therefore to conclude that is so is guess work and this should be clarified as so. You can logically conclude that, that's fine, but in your last post you said "we can logically conclude", suggesting that anyone who doesn't is committing a fallacy while you're not.

King_Prawn · 16-12-2013 01:53AM

Dave! wrote: »

Why do we care about what contemplative traditions maintain?

They have considered reality from a spiritual perspective, while materialists only from and empirical and rational one. Shouldn't that give them credence to make inference about the nature of consciousness, at least as much as the rational empiricists should logically be able to?

Call Me Jimmy · 16-12-2013 01:57AM

I would say that what the mind really is when it is active is not the sole material property of the body/brain and it's electrical exchanges. I think consciousness is a shared essence that is not, at its most fundamental level, separate from person to person, animal to animal etc.

I don't imagine science getting definitive answers either as I believe the scope is infinite. As we've seen already, the new things we learn lead to an exponentially greater amount of new things to understand.

bodice ripper · 16-12-2013 01:58AM

We get to be stardust again for a while.

SterlingArcher · 16-12-2013 01:59AM

We think of the people left behind...
And instantly regret not wiping our search history.

Mark Tapley · 16-12-2013 02:00AM

King_Prawn wrote: »

They have considered reality from a spiritual perspective, while materialists only from and empirical and rational one. Shouldn't that give them credence to make inference about the nature of consciousness, at least as much as the rational empiricists should logically be able to?

I would give them as much credence as I would a bunch of stoners debating the meaning of life.

bodice ripper · 16-12-2013 02:00AM

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Mass, burial, piss-up.

I used to play bass for Mass Burial Piss Up.

Rothko · 16-12-2013 02:01AM

Everlasting nothingness

MilanPan!c · 16-12-2013 02:01AM

Death is like unplugging a toaster.

catallus · 16-12-2013 02:03AM

Minnie1990 wrote: »

I think everything we're told by the church and whatnot is a load of highfalutin' crap. Personally I think people clutch onto these ideas far too much and forget how to enjoy themselves by doing what the love to do. Regardless of whether there is a 'god' or a 'heaven/hell', in the end it doesn't matter. We'll be dead, we won't realise. What really grinds my gears is the elderly spending their last years stuck in churches 'saving themselves' when they should be out enjoying themselves and perhaps doing the church thing in moderation if that's what they want.

Why would this really grind your gears? How can you have any real understanding of how the elderly enjoy themselves? Maybe they enjoy spending time in a church, "saving themselves" as you so patly put it. Who are we to say how any person who can see the end of their lives coming towards them, their days passing by like flights of arrows, should think?

As for the rest of your post you seem to dismiss the highfalutin' crap that has been passed down by learned men over the past 3000 years pretty easily. Is it based on anything at all, this flippant dismissal? Other than immature cynicism?

"Regardless of there is a 'god' or a 'heaven/hell', in the end it doesn't matter. We'll be dead, we won't realise." Generations of philosophers and poets and metaphysicians provide us with thousands upon thousands of pages of knowledge and theory, fuel for the mind, and you come up with this. Do you understand what you are saying here?

I think Spock said it best by asking why we should....

"grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The Undiscovered Country, from whose bourn
No Traveler returns, Puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of.
Thus Conscience does make Cowards of us all....."

King_Prawn · 16-12-2013 02:04AM

Mark Tapley wrote: »

I would give them as much credence as I would a bunch of stoners debating the meaning of life.

Thing is, their spiritual methodology is scientific in nature, just like the materialists. It may not produce physical evidence like mainstream science but still surely their perspectives should be taken into consideration relating to spiritual matters, life after death being one.

Dave! · 16-12-2013 02:05AM

King_Prawn wrote: »

They have considered reality from a spiritual perspective, while materialists only from and empirical and rational one. Shouldn't that give them credence to make inference about the nature of consciousness, at least as much as the rational empiricists should logically be able to?

Has considering something from a "spiritual perspective" ever resulted in anything objectively verifiable or resulted in new knowledge about the universe?

Artful_Badger · 16-12-2013 02:05AM

King_Prawn wrote: »

A logical conclusion means you're taking all known data into consideration. We don't know that consciousness is dependent on the brain, therefore to conclude that is so is guess work and this should be clarified as so. You can logically conclude that, that's fine, but in your last post you said "we can logically conclude", suggesting that anyone who doesn't is committing a fallacy while you're not.

Well given I think that is the logical conclusion based on the available data it would imply (whether I specifically said it or not) that I think any differing view would be committing a fallacy. But thats not the same as claiming to have a definitive answer as you previously suggested.

dd972 · 16-12-2013 02:05AM

Not particularly religious or think about it that much but there's a You Tube clip of a U.S lady called Pam Reynolds who had an NDE, it'll make your hair curl.:eek:

Socrates got it right
“To fear death, gentlemen, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not, to think one knows what one does not know. No one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all blessings for a man, yet men fear it as if they knew that it is the greatest of evils.”

Dave! · 16-12-2013 02:11AM

dd972 wrote: »

Not particularly religious or think about it that much but there's a You Tube clip of a U.S lady called Pam Reynolds who had an NDE, it'll make your hair curl.:eek:

Ah, it's usually not long until Pam Reynolds or Eben Alexander come up in these discussions.

There are pretty comprehensive debunkings of these stories, so it's worth reading beyond just the initial claims as they are presented.

This is a good article
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/science-on-the-brink-of-death

Mark Tapley · 16-12-2013 02:13AM

King_Prawn wrote: »

Thing is, their spiritual methodology is scientific in nature, just like the materialists. It may not produce physical evidence like mainstream science but still surely their perspectives should be taken into consideration relating to spiritual matters, life after death being one.

Spiritual to me has just come to mean credulous.

Dave! · 16-12-2013 02:18AM

catallus wrote: »

Why would this really grind your gears? How can you have any real understanding of how the elderly enjoy themselves? Maybe they enjoy spending time in a church, "saving themselves" as you so patly put it. Who are we to say how any person who can see the end of their lives coming towards them, their days passing by like flights of arrows, should think?

As for the rest of your post you seem to dismiss the highfalutin' crap that has been passed down by learned men over the past 3000 years pretty easily. Is it based on anything at all, this flippant dismissal? Other than immature cynicism?

"Regardless of there is a 'god' or a 'heaven/hell', in the end it doesn't matter. We'll be dead, we won't realise." Generations of philosophers and poets and metaphysicians provide us with thousands upon thousands of pages of knowledge and theory, fuel for the mind, and you come up with this. Do you understand what you are saying here?

I think Spock said it best by asking why we should....

"grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The Undiscovered Country, from whose bourn
No Traveler returns, Puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of.
Thus Conscience does make Cowards of us all....."

Tbh a secondary school student today has more knowledge about the universe than the most learned man alive 3000 years ago. They were attempting to understand the world as they saw it, without any of the sophisticated methodologies or technology that we have today. They did the best they could given the context in which they existed.

We've moved on quite a bit since then in terms of our knowledge, so while there is value in reading what these people had to say, we should be understanding the universe from a 21st century perspective, not a bronze-age perspective.

zenno · 16-12-2013 02:19AM

I know that when you die, some electrical part of you (conciousness) survives, but I can't prove it. There is another reality-state of the electrical part of you that releases itself from the dead matter of the body and forwarded to connect with all other electrical energies here, and in space.

Sure you will all find out in the end yourselves. Give me a thanks when you realise this to be the case, from the other-side

Two Flutes · 16-12-2013 02:24AM

zenno wrote: »

Only utter annihilation of the physical body, but what we call conciousness travels on imo.

On what basis do you make that conclusion ?
If its just a personal belief then thats fine, but its just the same as any religious belief

kjl · 16-12-2013 02:28AM

I am going to sound crazy, but here is what I think is a possibility.

I think we go into a dream world when we die, I think we experience this every night but we just can't remember, but we get glimpses.

I think we have a spiritual body in another dimension and our brain is like a radio that picks up our conscienceless for this other realm. So when our body dies, the radio doesn't work anymore, but the signal is still being broadcast.

So here is the bit of science I have to back it up. DMT is a chemical found in every living creature from humans to a blade of grass. It is possible to extract this substance and people smoke it and get very profound effects. The description that is made is that this reality breaks away and you are in this spiritual realm, you can interact with people around you and there are Elfs which guide you through this world and everybody reports a similar experience.

The only problem is that it's impossible to comprehend when you get back to normality. It's the same with dreams, we may think we remember our dreams, but actually if you really think about it, you can only remember themes, perhaps certain details but never remember the whole thing clearly. There is a moment when you are drifting off to sleep when you can notice this, try it yourself, when your eyes are starting to get heavy drift off for a moment and you wake up, try to remember the thought that was in your head, it's like it winds and spirals around in your mind, but you can't comprehend what it is when you wake up.

When you die, the pineal gland secretes a tone of DMT in to your brain, could this be the gateway to the afterlife?

This idea isn't new as well, dating back to egyptian times there are paintings of men with third eyes in their brain, well the pineal gland is actually an eye in lizards and it possible this is our third eye, the eye to the spiritual world.

zenno · 16-12-2013 02:29AM

Two Flutes wrote: »

On what basis do you make that conclusion ?
If its just a personal belief then thats fine, but its just the same as any religious belief

No. It's from personal experience. It's not a belief in such words as just believing in something without some self proof, It was experienced and this is the conclusion I came to.

I'm an atheist by the way.

catallus · 16-12-2013 02:29AM

Dave! wrote: »

Tbh a secondary school student today has more knowledge about the universe than the most learned man alive 3000 years ago. They were attempting to understand the world as they saw it, without any of the sophisticated methodologies or technology that we have today. They did the best they could given the context in which they existed.

But they existed in the exact same context as we do today. Sure, we have telescopes nowadays that can help us see further than they could in the past, but our understanding of what the universe is and how it came about is still as fuzzy as it was before technology advanced. I'm not saying there hasn't been development in our thought, but we shouldn't be so vain as to think we know any more than they did about death or the existence (or not) of the soul. Our sophisticated methodologies still don't provide us with the apparatus to know what goes on beyond death, if anything at all does.

Dave! wrote: »

We've moved on quite a bit since then in terms of our knowledge, so while there is value in reading what these people had to say, we should be understanding the universe from a 21st century perspective, not a bronze-age perspective.

How can the question of life after death be differentiated by such a trivial parameter as time?

Call Me Jimmy · 16-12-2013 02:31AM

Two Flutes wrote: »

On what basis do you make that conclusion ?
If its just a personal belief then thats fine, but its just the same as any religious belief

Well I think there is an equal amount of faith required to believe anything about the fundamental nature of consciousness based on science because it has not produced any conclusions either.

bodice ripper · 16-12-2013 02:32AM

Am I the only one who does not want to imagine the consciousness lives on? This place we live in is pain, chaos, light and noise. I would like to think I will be tired when I die, and will be glad of actual rest. Everlasting life could as easily be more effort, dwelling on lost loved ones, and confusion. Might be nice to be released from that.

And yeah, I am a bit of a goth.

patwicklow · 16-12-2013 02:36AM

But were was every body before they were born? so there is hope of coming back when you think of it that way, im here i was not here in 1969, so if i go again whos to say i wont be back.

Artful_Badger · 16-12-2013 02:39AM

bodice ripper wrote: »

Am I the only one who does not want to imagine the consciousness lives on? This place we live in is pain, chaos, light and noise. I would like to think I will be tired when I die, and will be glad of actual rest. Everlasting life could as easily be more effort, dwelling on lost loved ones, and confusion. Might be nice to be released from that.

And yeah, I am a bit of a goth.

Does seem more like a curse than a gift to be brought into existence, consigned to self awareness while struggling through life's hardships until a confusing and scary departure making the entire thing utterly pointless.

zenno · 16-12-2013 02:40AM

patwicklow wrote: »

But were was every body before they were born? so there is hope of coming back when you think of it that way, im here i was not here in 1969, so if i go again whos to say i wont be back.

Your electrical energy has to go somewhere

Artful_Badger · 16-12-2013 02:41AM

zenno wrote: »

No. It's from personal experience. It's not a belief in such words as just believing in something without some self proof, It was experienced and this is the conclusion I came to.

I'm an atheist by the way.

So you had a NDE or you met a ghost ?

What happens after we die?

Comments