What happens after death

  • #26
155
1
Originally posted by elwestrand
I agree with Canute. There is no scientific principle that asserts that consciousness is a result of the biochemical reations in the physical brain. If there is, what is it? Tell me, please. This is a POSTULATE, not an AXIOM, although many people consider it an axiom because they have limited perceptions. Science asserts that consciousness is an epiphenomenon-- it has no explanation of it in truth.

Am, the physical brain is not the cause of consciousness, just as a riverbed is not the cause of water. Physical brain is an insturment for consciouness to express itself through the physical body. I have no faith in this, I have experienced the reality of it.
APPLAUSE ! ! !

Brains are simply billions of material particulates - at some subatomic level those particulates are elemental (comprised only of themselves). Each of those elemental particulates is an 'existence' or 'being'. Each existence has the property of identity. Two particulates cannot share an identity.

Brains do not think. The life-form 'being' which is wearing it experiences 'thought'. Brains do; however, facilitate thought and engender what we experience as consciousness. Processes in the brain influence thought just as thought influences the processes in the brain.

Brains are basically the filter between the stimulus from outside the body and the being inside the body. They REALLY come in handy. Without it, you would be dead - again.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
86
0
I have seen the physical organism and even the subtle ones are something like "pressure suits." They allow the soul to interface with this dimension, this "frequency," like a deep sea diver needs a special suit to go into waters where the pressure would normally implode his skull. Soul doesn't have a skull to implode, but it is like helium trying to go into the deep sea-- this explains why we need sleep. Science does not explain why we need sleep. I have not heard its explanation. Because when we sleep, at least part of our consciousness, our soul actually "leaves" this frequency of reality-- to "recharge" I guess. If evolution were true, then wouldn't it make a whole lot of sense for sleep not to exist? Survival would be much easier. Is there a very good reason why it is beyond the organism's capacity to to do all the rebuilding, growth and hormone processes while we are simply consciously resting? Why sleep?

I am surmising that there are two types of consciousness that we are in comtact with at every moment: That of the soul and yet the all prevading, omnipresent consciousness of energy. (energy being identical with consciousness). In indian philosophy, this latter one is called paramatma, one of three features of God. My zen friend says that every living cell has its own awareness and its own emotion. And no one has been able to comment against my "plant sentience" thesis.
 
  • #28
1,515
0
Originally posted by Messiah
UNconscious
Not necessarily. Meditative experiences suggest that it isn't that simple.

Thinking is a process - something you DO, not something you ARE.
Agreed

Done. I have been unconscious. I still existed.
Unconscious doesn't count, since it's defined as not-conscious. The question is what is rather what is consciousness in the absence of thoughts. If it ceases to exist you're right. If not then you're not.

Done. Consciousness is a state of being. You cannot have a state of being without being . . . unless you live in Texas, where the state is consumate confusion
Lol. This is subtle point though. It concerns the precise meaning of 'exist'. In many world-views ultimate reality neither exists not not-exists in a scientific sense.

I was three hours short of a degree in physics (30 years ago) when I decided that too much of it was poorly conceived conjecture. I ultimately degreed in bean counting (math) - which is actually just a language, a systematic shorthand for logic. MANY things cannot be proven empirically but must be derived from logic alone.
Actually I would agree that all entities are FINITE aspects of one infinitely differentiated thing - the Universe
The universe is certainyl differentiated. But what underlies it may not be.

Matter . . . space . . . both are forms of existence. Consciousness is a condition, a state of existence. One is derived from the other. It is not difficult to determine which is more fundamental.
Like I say, try proving it. Idealism is unfalsifiable in priciple, and a very popular doctrine to this day, even among scientists.

Try this - http://cul.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402121. [Broken]

The Universe was never created - it is eternal.
But assuming it is eternal does not not mean we can assume that it ahas no cause or substrate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
284
0
Lets see, science has labled nearly the entire brain AND associated those parts of our brain with parts of our consciousness. Emotion, logic, memory, reasoning. All this can be found readily available in medical journals every month.

Why does taking a very physical drug effect your consciousness if physical matter had nothing to do with your consciousness.
 
  • #30
1,515
0
Deeviant

Don't let all those clever words in medical journals fool you. Very little is known about this. But nobody argues that brain has nothing to do with consciousness.
 
  • #31
86
0
Originally posted by Deeviant

Why does taking a very physical drug effect your consciousness if physical matter had nothing to do with your consciousness.
It is because the brain facilitates consciousness and like As was said, chemical stimulations in the brain will affect consciouness just as consciousness will affect chemicals in the brain. It is like the difference between pushing a cart and pulling the cart. But the casue for mental cognition is not the brain itself-- it can abandon the brain and remain in existence although it cannot remain in this dimension.
 
  • #32
2,225
0
Here's and interesting link, http://www.paganpaths.org/midwestcaw/iacchus.html [Broken] ...

Welcome to my Sacred Circle, I am Iacchus

Iacchus is that boisterous shout who heralds the new World (age of "Man"). One of the main goals of Jungian psychology in its quest for Self knowledge, is the Knowledge of the myth of Self that is guiding ones Soul. Iacchus is the myth of Self that guides my Soul, so I call my Self, Iacchus. Iacchus in English is Jack, my given Christian name. In researching the myth of Iacchus I have developed a recreation of his Myth in cooperation with my Collective Unconsciousness and its Self.

So Friends, I invite you to sit awhile and hear a tale of Iacchus. If you thirst, here is a Sacred Cup filled with water from the Well of the Phoenix. May you Never Thirst!
While here's a link regarding the Mysteries of Eleusis ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
155
1
Originally posted by elwestrand
It is because the brain facilitates consciousness and like As was said, chemical stimulations in the brain will affect consciouness just as consciousness will affect chemicals in the brain. It is like the difference between pushing a cart and pulling the cart. But the casue for mental cognition is not the brain itself-- it can abandon the brain and remain in existence although it cannot remain in this dimension.
Please elucidate your meaning of dimension. In the Universe there are three axes - X,Y,Z. The infinite array of polar coordinates - stretching to infinity - which can be derived from these are all dimensions.

Do you assume something exists outside of the Universe?
 
  • #34
23
0
My Theory

I've been tossing this theory around for quite some time. Input please.

When we live we obtain energy through consumption etc., and use that energy to get us more energy and procreate.

But when we die we still have so much energy in us. My theory is that with every bit of energy that is released from your body, a part of your existance goes with it. For everyone uses energy throughout thier lives whether tis to run from a predator, chase down food or plain sitting we use energy, and every day our lives grow shorter. So maybe, just maybe we all will exist forever just not contained within one body.
 
  • #35
1,515
0
Originally posted by Messiah
Do you assume something exists outside of the Universe? [/B]
Sorry to butt in but if by 'universe' you mean what science means then it is well known (even to science) that there is something that exists beyond it.
 
  • #36
Zero
Wow. All sorts of made-up fanciful stuff here!! Most of it is wrong, but heck, its your time, waste it as you like.

When you die, generally, a guy or gal in a white lab coat removes your bodily fluids and replaces them with a preservative. At some point you get dressed in something formal, and your face gets painted up to look like a drag queen. Generally your friends and family look at your corpse, then they cry alot and dump it in a hole.
 
  • #37
1,515
0
I don't think that anyone is arguing otherwise. It's quite clear that our bodies cease to exist soon after our death.
 
  • #38
Zero
Originally posted by Canute
I don't think that anyone is arguing otherwise. It's quite clear that our bodies cease to exist soon after our death.
Yep, and until otherwise shown, we are our bodies.
 
  • #39
23
0
Yes I know but the point im trying to get at is that humans know next to nothing about energy sofar, so could it not be possible that every bit of energy is carrying a piece of your "soul"?
 
  • #40
Zero
Originally posted by Odin
Yes I know but the point im trying to get at is that humans know next to nothing about energy sofar, so could it not be possible that every bit of energy is carrying a piece of your "soul"?
Its also possible that when we die, our "souls"(assuming their existance) go into stacks of firewood, or turn into lime Jello...you don't see anyone following those possibilities, do you? Anything is possible, but 99.99% is completely unfounded speculation, and IMO a waste of time. Especially since the whole debate is based on speculation about something else that has no foundation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
1,515
0
Originally posted by Zero
Yep, and until otherwise shown, we are our bodies.
That cannot be true. It is fairly easy to work out, and agreed by philosophers, that consciousness has no extension. It follows inevitably that we are more than our bodies.

This is not disputed by science. The dispute is over whether an unextended thing can be explained by science, not over whether it exists.
 
  • #42
FZ+
1,561
3
It is fairly easy to work out, and agreed by philosophers, that consciousness has no extension. It follows inevitably that we are more than our bodies.
The claim that consciousness has no extension does not mean we are more than our bodies. It means consciousness is not an object - which materialists have never claimed it to be. If we are our bodies, consciousness is a process. And very plausibly, a process that is not permanent.
 
  • #43
1,515
0
But it cannot be just a bodily process. Physical causes have physical effects, but if consciousness has no extension it isn't physical. So if want to argue that it's just a physical process you have to plump for epiphenominalism, the idea that consciousness is the waste product from a physical process. But a waste product is a thing by definition, not a process. Therefore there is a thing which is part of ourselves, whether it's the result of a process or not, which is not physical.

You can argue that brain is mind, but nobody has managed to make that argument work yet. It contradicts the facts.

It's very difficult to argue that a purely physical process can have non-physical outcomes. I would say that the only way of arguing that consciousness is just a physical process is to assume it doesn't exist. Behaviourists tried that one it doesn't work.
 
  • #44
Zero
Originally posted by Canute
But it cannot be just a bodily process. Physical causes have physical effects, but if consciousness has no extension it isn't physical. So if want to argue that it's just a physical process you have to plump for epiphenominalism, the idea that consciousness is the waste product from a physical process. But a waste product is a thing by definition, not a process. Therefore there is a thing which is part of ourselves, whether it's the result of a process or not, which is not physical.

You can argue that brain is mind, but nobody has managed to make that argument work yet. It contradicts the facts.

It's very difficult to argue that a purely physical process can have non-physical outcomes. I would say that the only way of arguing that consciousness is just a physical process is to assume it doesn't exist. Behaviourists tried that one it doesn't work.
This is an assertion with absolutely no basis in fact. I have absolutely no problem with consciousness being purely physical, and here is no evidence to suggest otheriwse.
 
  • #45
1,515
0
Hmm. You'll have trouble defending that position.

How can something with no extension be physical? If it is physical where is it? Why can't we see it with a microscope? What is the average mass of a feeling of pain? It a bad pain bigger and heavier than a mild one? How come our image and concept of the universe isn't as big and heavy as the real thing? And how come the mind can decide questions which the brain cannot? Etc...

Nobody has ever managed to come up with a plausible theory that suggests that consciousness is physical. It is to make a serious category error, as Gilbert Lyle is famous for pointing out.

Also there is overwhelming evidence that it is not physical. This is partly why Behaviourism is dead.
 
  • #46
Zero
Originally posted by Canute
Hmm. You'll have trouble defending that position.

How can something with no extension be physical? If it is physical where is it? Why can't we see it with a microscope? What is the average mass of a feeling of pain? It a bad pain bigger and heavier than a mild one? How come our image and concept of the universe isn't as big and heavy as the real thing? And how come the mind can decide questions which the brain cannot? Etc...

Nobody has ever managed to come up with a plausible theory that suggests that consciousness is physical. It is to make a serious category error, as Gilbert Lyle is famous for pointing out.

Also there is overwhelming evidence that it is not physical. This is partly why Behaviourism is dead.
You are misdefining the terms, which makes my position seem impossible. What I'd like for you to do is go into your computer's monitor, and measure the mass of the words on your screen.
 
  • #47
1,515
0
Originally posted by Zero
You are misdefining the terms, which makes my position seem impossible. What I'd like for you to do is go into your computer's monitor, and measure the mass of the words on your screen.
But I'm not suggesting that words don't have extension. It's not a similar case. It's perfectly possible to measure the physical attributes of words.

Which words do you feel I'm misdefining?
 
  • #48
155
1
Originally posted by Zero
Yep, and until otherwise shown, we are our bodies.
1) In order to experience you must exist.
2) You can only 'be' one existence. Multiple existences have multiple identities (duh).
3) Your body is billions of existences.
'Nuff said?
 
  • #49
155
1
Originally posted by Canute


How can something with no extension be physical?

Space physicaly exists - else there would be NOTHING between us and the sun and it would get awful hot :)

The soul is likely more etherial than material in nature.
If it is physical where is it? Why can't we see it with a microscope?
Inside you. Why can't you 'see' space?
What is the average mass of a feeling of pain? It a bad pain bigger and heavier than a mild one? How come our image and concept of the universe isn't as big and heavy as the real thing?
Why would you assume thought should have the property of mass?
And how come the mind can decide questions which the brain cannot? Etc...
The brain is just a lump of sophisticated mud - the being which wears it does the thinking.
Nobody has ever managed to come up with a plausible theory that suggests that consciousness is physical.
Guess I'm a nobody.. .
It is to make a serious category error, as Gilbert Lyle is famous for pointing out.

Also there is overwhelming evidence that it is not physical. This is partly why Behaviourism is dead.
Please cite the evidence.
Thanks
 
  • #50
Zero
Originally posted by Canute
But I'm not suggesting that words don't have extension. It's not a similar case. It's perfectly possible to measure the physical attributes of words.

Which words do you feel I'm misdefining?
"Pain", for instance, can be measured as a biological response. There's no mystery to it, only a matter of engineering proper measuring devices. There is no magical "otherness" to pain, no need to try to explain it that way. Physical injury causes a series of physical effects; we label those effects "pain". Why should there have to be anything else to it?
 

Related Threads on What happens after death

  • Last Post
3
Replies
50
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
86
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
5K
Replies
87
Views
49K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
7K
Top