Death

[Lacewing]

It could be said that the human body is nothing more than a shell for that which continues. Based on my experiences, I do not assign individual nor separate identity to that.

Based on those experiences, what would be the nature of that which continues beyond the body.

I don't know. It seems to be what is there (remains) as the human/physical experience comes and goes. In my experience, it seemed like vast awareness, yet without thoughts, needs, fears, or agenda. Completeness and oneness. All in order.

Would that subsequent experience still contain the identity of the person who died?

No individual identity or separation of any kind. No god. No "me". Sort of like an indistinguishable drop in an ocean while aware as an entire ocean. Identity had no purpose. There was nothing that needed to be added or defined. There was no emotion. Just quiet awareness of a vast borderless/formless expanse... without ego.

[Lacewing]

If I change my wording to "we can only work with what is possible" would you agree? For instance the Pope who had been mentioned as a case in point can with the best will in the world can only work with what is possible . Thus the Pope is saddled with a lot of responsibility which he has to live up to by doing what he can do within the limits of the RC Church, a conservative institution which has been averse to modern changes in beliefs and technology.

I agree that whatever limitations we feel restrained by, we will only be able to work with what seems possible in that circumstance. At the same time, I think there are many levels to everything, and many speeds/ways we can vibrate, and our ability and sight within all circumstances can vary significantly depending on all of those things.

We human beings seem to think that we can "turn ourselves on and then watch ourselves go"... in a very automatic, restricted, and controlled way. Sort of like an old, basic computer program designed to do a few functions. But I think it's much more realistic/likely that we are immensely "hooked up" to a vast network of capability and information and awareness... which we access cautiously because it scares us. It not only challenges our old models, it evaporates them! Very scary for humans who are convinced that they are their ego, and that they live in a box. I think, though, that when we move through this fear and stop imposing these ideas, and instead, accept and become aware of being (even as humans) part of a much larger natural flow, the larger flow NATURALLY KNOWS what its doing... and we can ride with it rather than fighting the current, and mucking up the clarity.

I think these ideas are reflected in nature. And we humans are beautifully but simply part of nature, even if we like to imagine ourselves as more significant.

[Hobbes' Choice]

What ARE you talking about?
I'm nothing without the sum of my memories. Without my personality I am dead!
Beyond those things I am nothing but a rotting corpse.

Apparently you see yourself (or that which animates you) as ONLY being a physical body. I do not see the universe as a bunch of separate, disconnected things. My experiences have shown me levels of "being" that are broader than the limitations of the physical world we know. This indicated for me that there is something (a dynamic or element) flowing through all, manifesting with innate awareness of the whole, in ways that we don't (nor need to) typically fathom... but which MAKE PERFECT SENSE for a completely connected and efficient system which is not modeled after our convoluted and limited human structure. We really are in a bubble. Our perceived limitations are not an accurate reflection of all that is. It could be said that the human body is nothing more than a shell for that which continues. Based on my experiences, I do not assign individual nor separate identity to that.

Whatever else I might be. I can't have a memory, consciousness, a sense of being, nor can I be me without a living functioning brain. The rest is meaningless. And what ever flim-flam you want to tell yourself about a 'soul' in an ineffable entity none of it matters without the continuity of your life's work ; which is definitively the unique structuration of your brain. When dementia strikes or Alzheiners what there is of you fades away.
The body is a shell for the brain, without the brain you are nothing.
Own that fact. If you do not you will never live your short life authentically.

[Lacewing]

Whatever else I might be. I can't have a memory, consciousness, a sense of being, nor can I be me without a living functioning brain. The rest is meaningless.

Okay, so you are a brain. Great.

And what ever flim-flam you want to tell yourself about a 'soul'

Didn't I already say I don't believe in souls?

none of it matters without the continuity of your life's work

None of it matters WITH your life's work.

When dementia strikes or Alzheiners what there is of you fades away. The body is a shell for the brain, without the brain you are nothing.

Well... I agree that identity doesn't remain after the body. But I don't think a certain kind of body is required for awareness.

Own that fact. If you do not you will never live your short life authentically.

What fact? I'm living my life very authentically. How do you explain that I'm able to do that if I'm not following your strict guidelines?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Whatever else I might be. I can't have a memory, consciousness, a sense of being, nor can I be me without a living functioning brain. The rest is meaningless.

Okay, so you are a brain. Great.

And what ever flim-flam you want to tell yourself about a 'soul'

Didn't I already say I don't believe in souls?

none of it matters without the continuity of your life's work

None of it matters WITH your life's work.

When dementia strikes or Alzheiners what there is of you fades away. The body is a shell for the brain, without the brain you are nothing.

Well... I agree that identity doesn't remain after the body. But I don't think a certain kind of body is required for awareness.

Own that fact. If you do not you will never live your short life authentically.

What fact? I'm living my life very authentically. How do you explain that I'm able to do that if I'm not following your strict guidelines?

Flipflop.

You do not seem to be making any claims.

[Lacewing]

Flipflop.

You do not seem to be making any claims.

How can I flipflop if I'm not making any claims?

[Belinda]

Lacewing wrote:

Well... I agree that identity doesn't remain after the body. But I don't think a certain kind of body is required for awareness.

If a certain kind of body is not required for awareness what is required for awareness?

[Lacewing]

Lacewing wrote:

Well... I agree that identity doesn't remain after the body. But I don't think a certain kind of body is required for awareness.

If a certain kind of body is not required for awareness what is required for awareness?

Well, all sorts of things in this universe have awareness, including plants which don't have brains... so, I don't know what is required for awareness... it seems to just be there.

[Greta]

I'm not talking about the personality or identity or a soul or a body.

People have been conditioned to believe that anything that does not conform to 19th century logical positivism must necessarily be related to religious concepts. We always forget that our experts will be are utterly naive compared with the experts of even just a century's time. I wonder what they will find out that overturns our current models?

That is a childish attack.
Where's the meat of your point?

Our "argument" is simple. You, and most others, claim that there is definitely no subjectivity possible after death. 100% certain. No room for argument. The problem is entirely solved. This certainty is based on the following:

1) a lack of any significant subjective experience during deep sleep and coma

2) the known physics of the brain

3) experiments that can stimulate subjects' brains to have peak experiences with elements similar to those of NDEs, including the bright light and dopamine spike.

It's all sound and logical, given what we know so far. However, as stated, we still know almost nothing about reality:

1) What actually are energy and matter? (about 5% of the universe)

2) What is dark matter? (about 25% of universe)

3) What is dark energy? (about 75% of universe)

In other words, we barely understand 100% of reality at this point in time.

The materialist model seems more likely to me for the (first) above rationales but, unlike you and most others here, I do not believe. I never made a decision to be agnostic about the nature of life, death and the universe - I noticed that I was agnostic, unsure about everything. That's my nature - unlike Mickey Dolenz I am simply not a believer :)

I can't feign belief - not in the Iron Age phantasms and not in materialist claims that they have "cracked the code". I find both sides are overly emotionally influenced, each spruiking their "preferred option".

[Greta]

Lacewing wrote:

Well... I agree that identity doesn't remain after the body. But I don't think a certain kind of body is required for awareness.

If a certain kind of body is not required for awareness what is required for awareness?

Well, all sorts of things in this universe have awareness, including plants which don't have brains... so, I don't know what is required for awareness... it seems to just be there.

The simpler the entity, the more limited the suite of responses to stimuli - from atoms to humans.

Of course, we don't need to be mentally aware of stimuli in order to react. Life and consciousness seem to be synonymous. How can you be alive without being aware to some degree, even if only on a mindless physical level? So a brainless jellyfish will flap its bell in different ways, depending on environment.

Non living things also have physical responses. Different "elements" (which are are also things in themselves) often self assemble to create different kinds of entities that are born, grow, develop and die. However, most of those things are not defined as "alive" - stars, planets, moons, black holes, the atmosphere, the ocean, viruses, proteins, body parts, solar systems, galaxies, galactic clusters, self assembling technology, self assembling nonliving organic chemicals. We consider almost everything to be dead and only the tiniest fraction of the universe to be alive.

I don't have a quarrel with the definition of life so much as the limiting semantic.

As far as I can tell there is not only biological life but also geological life and "plasmatic" life, eg. stars. At least. However, it seems that pundits routinely work around the semantic error of our terminology. Every documentary about stars and planets will always refer to stars', planets' and moons' births, growth, development, maturity (stability), decline and death. It's impossible to frame the fate of cosmic bodies any other way.

So I'm open to the possibility that death doesn't even exist, just shifts to different kinds of lives. However, those other types of life are considered pointless and trivial as compared with our highly rated (by ourselves) human cognition. Maybe the retreat to the unadulterated life of our molecules is beautiful? Just riffing of course as I have no idea what happens.

[Lacewing]

...

Enjoyed what you wrote, Greta... as I was hoping you would add your perspective using more conventionally educated terminology and knowledge than I'm able to. (I just wing it the best I can.)

So I'm open to the possibility that death doesn't even exist, just shifts to different kinds of lives. However, those other types of life are considered pointless and trivial as compared with our highly rated (by ourselves) human cognition.

Yes, I think the limits of our human definitions and understanding really hobble us from fathoming other ways that things could be functioning. We want to model everything off of such a small, small view. And I can't help but wonder if we might function in whole new expanded ways even in our human forms if only we could stop thinking we're the center template of all there is.

[Greta]

So I'm open to the possibility that death doesn't even exist, just shifts to different kinds of lives. However, those other types of life are considered pointless and trivial as compared with our highly rated (by ourselves) human cognition.

Yes, I think the limits of our human definitions and understanding really hobble us from fathoming other ways that things could be functioning. We want to model everything off of such a small, small view.

I think that's probably right. The impression I have from people who refer to their post-mortem possibilities (aside from others having to safely dispose of the corpse) is that if what follows this life is not human, then it might as well be nothing.

[Belinda]

Lacewing wrote:

Well, all sorts of things in this universe have awareness, including plants which don't have brains... so, I don't know what is required for awareness... it seems to just be there.

Maybe, it depends on what you mean by awareness. Vegetables are not sentient. The following explains why vegetables are not sentient. If trees and rose plants and so on had evolved to be mobile creatures they would have evolved muscles, movable joints , and nerves as have animals. The nerves would have included ability to learn from experience perhaps and so would have allowed sentience also to evolve.

Vegetable forms never evolved nerves and the other mobility -specific tissues and structures which animal forms have evolved. If you are saying perhaps for all we can know, the vegetable forms have a sort of sentience that we can know nothing about , you are right, however I cannot see that this observation has any practical or ethical value.

[Greta]

If you are saying perhaps for all we can know, the vegetable forms have a sort of sentience that we can know nothing about , you are right, however I cannot see that this observation has any practical or ethical value.

In a way everything and everyone has a form of sentience we can know nothing about. The practical upshot of such an attitude is it fosters respect and empathy for others and their different journeys - animal, vegetable or mineral. Just because we naturally prioritise humans over all else doesn't mean we should dismiss the rest as inconsequential. Unthinking life forms - from amoebas to human infants - are at least important to themselves, even if they don't know it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Flipflop.

You do not seem to be making any claims.

How can I flipflop if I'm not making any claims?

You make claims that you back away from, to and fro. All bluster and imagination, but saying nothing.