Hello, I found an interesting post on another forum, but I can't fully make out what was written. Basically, the poster tried to use mathematics to show that there is life after death, or rather the life of conscious soul that lives even after a person dies. He also used some formulas, or some expressions, which I don't understand. I found it pretty interesting, and I hope that it has some validity to it. I'm not sure if I can post links to other forums, so I'm copy/pasting the entire post: I performed a very basic formal logical analysis of a couple of statements, and came to the conclusion that being alive is not necessary for being conscious (i.e. self-aware) and intelligent. In other words, there's a chance that our souls do not disappear after we die, and that the technology like brain uploading is quite plausible. Additionally, in order to be self-aware it takes more than merely being alive, which makes me think that we humans are not closed systems, and might have a link to some external unknown system or a source, and that phenomena like astral projection for example might be real. The analysis I performed is explained below. 1) Let's assume that it's necessary to be biologically alive (A) in order to be conscious (C). In that case, C=>A. We may say that if a person is conscious, then he/she is also biologically alive, which is true (C=t, A=t, (C=>A)=t). However, a contradiction to this would be the statement that if a person is not conscious, then he/she is not alive either, which is clearly false, just think of brain dead people (C=f, A=f, (C=>A)=f). But this needs to be true in order for the original statement to be true. 2) The same reasoning applies to the statement that a person must be biologically alive (A) in order to be intelligent (I), in addition to be self-aware. It is true that an intelligent person is also biologically alive (A=t, I=t, (I=>A)=t), but it is false that an unintelligent person is dead (e.g. not biologically alive), and the prime example of this would be our "special people" brethren: (A=f, I=f, (I=>A)=f). Hereby lays a contradiction, which also negates our original statement. 3) And finally, let's prove that a human being is not just a sack of meat and bones, a bunch of chemical processes inside of a brain, etc. For this, let's say that being biologically alive (A) is sufficient for being conscious (C), or in other words that a human being is a closed system. Is it true that when something is biologically alive it doesn't have to be self-aware? Think once again of a brain dead person, or an animal tissue cell, or a plant? Yep, it's true. Thus, after showing that (A=t, C=f, (A=>C)=t), we conclude that simply being alive IS NOT enough to possess self-awareness, or consciousness, or soul, and that something else (who knows what) is required. A more detailed example: Initial statement: being biologically alive (A) is necessary for being conscious (C), i.e. C=>A Let's construct the truth table: A C (C=>A) T T T T F T F T F F F T Now let's check if the truth table and the initial statement hold: T,T,T – if a person is conscious, then he/she is also biologically alive (pretty obvious, eh?) T,F,T – if a person is NOT conscious, he/she is still biologically alive (as in a case with brain dead, unconscious, etc.) F,T,F – if a person is conscious, then he/she is NOT biologically alive (this is actually UNKNOWN, so lets assume it to be true for the sake of the argument) F,F,T – if a person is UNconscious, then he/she is NOT biologically alive. This is false (F), as was demonstrated above, therefore the initial statement is not true either. Being biologically alive is in fact NOT necessary for being conscious. The other two statements were proven in a similar wa Btw, I'm new and I like your forum a lot :) I think I'll be checking it out from now on.