Life after death
Discussion
fesuvious said:
Has there ever been a moment where scientists haven't thought they have it all sussed, right up until the moment it's found their knowledge is wrong?
It's all well and good asking for proof, but it's not possible to prove that consciousness cannot live on. The understanding of what constitutes consciousness simply isn't there.
If I'm wrong on that, great! Show me how it isn't possible that something science cannot quantify but accepts exists fails to live on after the carcass which hosts it ceases to function.
Science is literally about having an an idea and trying to prove it wrong. Science doesn’t have things that cannot be quantified and that are just accepted, that’s religion.It's all well and good asking for proof, but it's not possible to prove that consciousness cannot live on. The understanding of what constitutes consciousness simply isn't there.
If I'm wrong on that, great! Show me how it isn't possible that something science cannot quantify but accepts exists fails to live on after the carcass which hosts it ceases to function.
Humans are stupid. We think that because we can think and are a bit better at it than other animals that we’re special and that there just simply absolutely must be ‘something else’ after your brain stops working, but the likelyhood of that being true is infinitesimally small.
You live, you breathe, you die. End of. (Unless proven differently by scientific methods in the future)
Have a great weekend y’all.
fesuvious said:
Has there ever been a moment where scientists haven't thought they have it all sussed, right up until the moment it's found their knowledge is wrong?
It's all well and good asking for proof, but it's not possible to prove that consciousness cannot live on. The understanding of what constitutes consciousness simply isn't there.
If I'm wrong on that, great! Show me how it isn't possible that something science cannot quantify but accepts exists fails to live on after the carcass which hosts it ceases to function.
The programs that you run on your phone/computer are very different from the hardware yet without the hardware you couldn’t run them. Unless you believe in ghost computers. Same as for consciousness. Consciousness is more than just the sum of the underlying atoms and electrons but it makes no sense to think that you could have consciousness without the underlying physical matter. It's all well and good asking for proof, but it's not possible to prove that consciousness cannot live on. The understanding of what constitutes consciousness simply isn't there.
If I'm wrong on that, great! Show me how it isn't possible that something science cannot quantify but accepts exists fails to live on after the carcass which hosts it ceases to function.
Fesuvious, if you want to start talking about consciousness scientifically, then the onus is on you to tell us precisely what you mean by "consciousness". Same applies to terms like "life".
Unless you overlay those words' normal and rather casual everyday meaning with some precision, then you can't start taking about their existence or non-existence coz no-one knows what the thing is that's being discussed.
Unless you overlay those words' normal and rather casual everyday meaning with some precision, then you can't start taking about their existence or non-existence coz no-one knows what the thing is that's being discussed.
Edited by ATG on Saturday 16th January 10:06
The exercise of forcing yourself to be precise about what you mean by consciousness tends to make the other answers pretty obvious too.
If by "consciousness" you mean an object's capacity to reason about itself, then many things are "conscious" to some degree including lots of machines. If you them say that machines and plenty of organisms are not "self aware", you're straight back into the "define what you mean by aware" space.
When you chip away at "life" and "consciousness" I think you generally find they mean far, far less than we initially think they do and they're really a portmanteau for a bunch of human characteristics that we value rather than ideas that have useful scientific meaning. "Intelligence" falls squarely in the same category which is why terms like "artificial intelligence" are pretty useless.
So use the words and concepts in domains in which they are appropriate and don't try to give them wider generality. If we're discussing human morality then thinking about free will, human agency, intelligence, life, consciousness are all absolutely fine. Like an elephant, we know it when we see it. But if you try to persist with those ideas and drill into their physics, you're on a hiding to nothing, because they don't mean anything in that domain.
If by "consciousness" you mean an object's capacity to reason about itself, then many things are "conscious" to some degree including lots of machines. If you them say that machines and plenty of organisms are not "self aware", you're straight back into the "define what you mean by aware" space.
When you chip away at "life" and "consciousness" I think you generally find they mean far, far less than we initially think they do and they're really a portmanteau for a bunch of human characteristics that we value rather than ideas that have useful scientific meaning. "Intelligence" falls squarely in the same category which is why terms like "artificial intelligence" are pretty useless.
So use the words and concepts in domains in which they are appropriate and don't try to give them wider generality. If we're discussing human morality then thinking about free will, human agency, intelligence, life, consciousness are all absolutely fine. Like an elephant, we know it when we see it. But if you try to persist with those ideas and drill into their physics, you're on a hiding to nothing, because they don't mean anything in that domain.
ATG said:
Fesuvious, if you want to start talking about consciousness scientifically, then the onus is on you to tell us previously what you mean by "consciousness". Same applies to terms like "life".
Unless you overlay those words' normal and rather casual everyday meaning with some precision, then you can't start taking about their existence or non-existence coz no-one knows what the thing is that's being discussed.
You also need a plausible mechanism for consciousness to live outside a body (and then you need to test your hypothesis for that mechanism.)Unless you overlay those words' normal and rather casual everyday meaning with some precision, then you can't start taking about their existence or non-existence coz no-one knows what the thing is that's being discussed.
hotchy said:
Your dead its over. Sort of. Electrical signals are still found in the brain for up to 6 months after death. Thats your afterlife right there. So don't get burnt, you'll miss out.
Is that consciousness or life? Or just your cells firing off the last of their energy like the plinking of a cooling engine?I don't think there is life after death, but we have been conditioned to believe there might be.
When we were little if a relative died, what were you told? I doubt many were told, that's it no more(insert name of friend, relative, pet)
Most religions use the thought of a better life on the other side if you follow their doctrine.
When we were little if a relative died, what were you told? I doubt many were told, that's it no more(insert name of friend, relative, pet)
Most religions use the thought of a better life on the other side if you follow their doctrine.
Tom Logan said:
The body consists of 3 elements......
Water
Chemicals
Electrical impulses
When the electrical impulses stop, all that's left is biological waste.
Any other hypothesis is based on superstition and religious claptrap.
Is a belief and hence a kind of religion itself. Water
Chemicals
Electrical impulses
When the electrical impulses stop, all that's left is biological waste.
Any other hypothesis is based on superstition and religious claptrap.
No one knows. That's kind of the point.
Drumroll said:
I don't think there is life after death, but we have been conditioned to believe there might be.
When we were little if a relative died, what were you told? I doubt many were told, that's it no more(insert name of friend, relative, pet)
Most religions use the thought of a better life on the other side if you follow their doctrine.
Yes it’s a comfort thing really and the idea of ghosts etc an easy way to explain something which in the surface may appear unexplained When we were little if a relative died, what were you told? I doubt many were told, that's it no more(insert name of friend, relative, pet)
Most religions use the thought of a better life on the other side if you follow their doctrine.
Well, this thread came back to life after being dead for over a month, which makes be think it might be a zombie or vampire type thread - best kill it with fire, sunlight, holy water, garlic, a big pointy stick and possibly some very sharp vinyl LP records. Dead stuff should stay dead - nothing good ever came of reincarnation. Apart from Jesus, obviously, although opinions on that may differ.
Johnnytheboy said:
I don't really understand what purpose life after death, or more specifically survival of consciousness after death would serve.
I get how it provides people with some comfort, but it only takes a moment's thought to realise how absurd the idea is.
you need to define and understand what consciousness is before stating what it can do, current science cannot explain aspects of consciousness between living people at this time.I get how it provides people with some comfort, but it only takes a moment's thought to realise how absurd the idea is.
Johnnytheboy said:
Probably, but some things are so beyond being likely that absurdity sets in.
Argument one: what evolutionary advantage would it serve?
Ask yourself what's the purpose of evolution if death is the end anyway, why have life if all life ends. It doesn't matter, you'll have millions of years of evolution only for all life on earth to end anyway. It's all pointless.Argument one: what evolutionary advantage would it serve?
Until anyone can even remotely explain how that spark of life begins it's absurd to categorically state that death can only mean there is nothing else for that life form. Anything is possible, just we don't know for sure.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff