You cannot prove either way whether "life" goes beyond death. Some may speculate that Near Death Experiences show that consciousness is eternal. From the perspective of the anthropic principal, I have to question as to whether consciousness takes the center stage in the universe. I know from my own personal perspective, consciousness takes the center stage in the universe. I personally have the opinion that consciousness is eternal. Always has been always will be.
One can prove that brain activity ceases after death, this is easy to do. Using this knowledge, one can prove that one does not experience any thought after death. I like to think of "death" as simply being asleep (without dreaming) for an infinite amount of time.
Many religions believe there is life after death, but you cannot "prove" them wrong because they always assume that the "life after death" is paranormal and thus cannot be examined by science!
One cannot prove or disprove nonsensical statements.
They are not even wrong.
I'd rephrase the question if I were you. Life is best defined as a collection of biological processes that together qualify any given object as living. Thus defined, life clearly ends when death occurs. What you really want to know is whether or not the conscious ego, or self, can survive the death of the body it is associated with.
lockecole: It's called hope.
You can't give physicality to hope.
There must be
There has to be life after death, if not then what happens to our mind and soul which is eternal.
That is not a sound argument, unless you can demonstrate that the mind is eternal. Good luck trying.
Physicallity decomposes, elements of physics and nature, metaphysics is beyond space and time, if there is a time when mind exists and a time when it doesn't then it wouldn't be metaphysical.
Hence, metaphysical. Beyond space and time.
The soul can't be graphed on a space-time graph.
Modern cognitive science clearly shows a correlation between physical brain activity and experiential conscious states. If anything, such a correlation is suggestive that as the brain goes, so does the mind; if the brain stops functioning, it is reasonable to believe that the mind does as well.
Is that a proof? No, but it's a compelling argument. You have yet to provide even that. "Metaphysical things are beyond the physical, therefore the mind is eternal" is not exactly compelling reasoning.
When the mind is dead, the human is dead hence life after death.
When looking at the fact as you state a co-relation between brain activity and experiential conscious states you are disregarding mind again, simple example, imagine a walking dog that smokes, can you imagine that. Now prove to me that you thought of that dog, you can't cause it exists only in your metaphysical mind.
I thought the mind was eternal? If it's eternal, how could it die?
Actually, with a sophisticated enough investigation of the brain, you could prove that you thought of such a dog. Your brain activity would show that the neurons in your brain responsible for encoding your concepts of doghood, smoking, etc. would have elevated activity.
first off, I apologize for my self contradiction, what I meant to say is that when the brain is dead, the body is dead, hence the mind and soul live after life, once again, I apologize for that.
Secondly, I don't see why your trying to lower a human being to nothing more than a computer. Secondly, you said that the neurons show elavating when thinking of such a dog, but the same can be said when thinking of a smoking cat, a flying horse, a walking snake, now prove that your thinking of one of these exact examples, though your neurons may increase in activity when using the mind, that in no way implies that the brain can determine exactly what is going on in the mind. If thats the case then how can someone with photographic memory be able to keep all those thoughts locked up in that small little head of his.
You are still operating under an assumption that you have not been able to support. Worse, you are assuming that which you are trying to prove. Your argument is both unsound and circular.
I am not trying to lower anything. I'm trying to use scientific facts to try to construct a reasonable argument.
Re-read what I said. The brain is not a homogenous pudding. Different regions of the brain specifically code for different things. Very likely, there is a particular set of neurons that codes particularly for the concept of doghood and its various associations, and likewise with cats, horses, snakes, smoking, walking, etc. In principle, we could differentiate thoughts about a dog from thoughts about a cat by observing that the set of neurons responsible for encoding 'dog' light up as opposed to those that encode 'cat,' and so on.
That small little head of his has tens of billions of computational elements (neurons) and hundreds of trillions of interconnections between those neurons. Something like photographic memory is really not that impressive a feat for a computational resource as powerful and complex as the brain.
Excellent stuff Hypnagogue. I especially agree with The brain is not a homogenous pudding
Currently, we do not have the technology to figure out which sequence of neuron firing "codes" for particular objects. We do, however know the areas of the brain which specialize for the senses. Not only is it Very likely, that there are particular sets of neurons that code for different concepts, but it has been proven . Likely, you have seen that TV clip of a doctor probing the uncovered brain of a patient who smelt burnt toast right before she went into a coma. By poking her brain at a specific spot, the patient actually smelt burnt toast!
Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that everything we think of is "coded" by a sequence of firing neurons. Sure, we don't know the specifics yet, but I'll bet you that we will.
Also, your quote of "why are you trying to lower the brain to nothing more than a computer" is not very good argument, as Hypnagogue pointed out. We are not trying to lower anything, we are just stating accepted facts.
What do you guys think about this research:
some quotes from it:
Well, that supports my view of the brain as a HETEROGENOUS pudding..
The mind/soul (whatever you call it) stops experiencing... The mind may then find another brain, then experience continues.
I wonder why so many people seem to have no problem with citing things, acceptible to their preconceptions, that "might" happen. Can't they, can't you, see that this is a meaningless noise if anything ever was?
Are you referring to my post? Ok, then nobody can make any statements about post death possibilities... whether experience continues or not. Every statement of this regard will be a "might" statement. The whole topic is a "might" topic.
That is exactly right. "From [that] bourne No traveler returns".
Well, technically speaking, there *is* some form of lif eafter death...the molecules of which you are made up ore not destroyed...merely re-arranged after you die...so one could argue that at the most basic level there is "life". But I think what you're getting at is is there *conscious* life after death...that's definetly harder to prove. One could argue from a religious perspective, but it's not necessary to be religious to believe in life after death. And I don't agree tha tthe idea of lif eafter death is a non-sensical statement. I like good, empirical evidence, but I don't believe it's the be all and end all. I believe that there are things out there, which are real, which cannot now, and may never be able to be explained by science. Science cannot hope to explain everything.
I can't say if I exist or not. That way is the way for fun. Thinking you don't exist make you do wat you want. If you don't exist it's not important to be wrong and bad or a good man! Just have fun and don't try to help people or being good!! Man watch yourself you're the product of an imagination, so don't ask you question!
"Can you prove me there is no life after death?"
I can prove that there is a “to” before “me” and "that" before "there"...... :)
Separate names with a comma.