Death

[Lacewing]

Why must an afterlife imply an eternal soul? What do "eternal souls" do when the universe's black hole era ends in a quintillion years? Not much. There are ways of open-mindedly thinking about death that have nothing to do with the objects of dogmas or myths.

(I'm not directing this at you, Greta... I'm simply inspired by what you've said.)

What is it that makes humans believe that our apparent individuality in this life/existence is the representative model for all that is beyond this life? What is this obsession with a model of eternal separateness other than to exalt the individual ego (now) and believe in a unique validity?

[Greta]

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... faOaWBP.99

I read it. Basic and obvious, and completely missing the point.

I make no claims - I simply don't know what happens subjectively at death. As with my debates with theists, you are making an untested claim - that there is nothing after death (just as they claim their own dogmas). Given that no one understanding how the movement of electrical signals between neurons can produce the phenomenon we call consciousness, you are necessarily simply touting your preferred option.

Scientists are still continually being surprised and sometimes the seemingly unlikely option turns out to be the answer. I want more information before I decide anything in this matter.

[Hobbes' Choice]

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... faOaWBP.99

I read it. Basic and obvious, and completely missing the point.

I make no claims - I simply don't know what happens subjectively at death. As with my debates with theists, you are making an untested claim - that there is nothing after death (just as they claim their own dogmas). Given that no one understanding how the movement of electrical signals between neurons can produce the phenomenon we call consciousness, you are necessarily simply touting your preferred option.

Scientists are still continually being surprised and sometimes the seemingly unlikely option turns out to be the answer. I want more information before I decide anything in this matter.

You are making a series of unfounded claims, I'm simply talking about that which is evident.
In fact NOTHING you say is substantiated, especially your amusing last sentence.

[Lacewing]

I'm simply talking about that which is evident.

Do you think that's all there is?

[Greta]

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... faOaWBP.99

I read it. Basic and obvious, and completely missing the point.

I make no claims - I simply don't know what happens subjectively at death. As with my debates with theists, you are making an untested claim - that there is nothing after death (just as they claim their own dogmas). Given that no one understanding how the movement of electrical signals between neurons can produce the phenomenon we call consciousness, you are necessarily simply touting your preferred option.

Scientists are still continually being surprised and sometimes the seemingly unlikely option turns out to be the answer. I want more information before I decide anything in this matter.

You are making a series of unfounded claims, I'm simply talking about that which is evident.
In fact NOTHING you say is substantiated, especially your amusing last sentence.

All bluster, says nothing. I expected better.

It's up to you to PROVE that you know how consciousness works since you are the one making a claim about death.

All I've said is I don't know which, according to you, is an "unsubstantiated claim"

[Hobbes' Choice]

I'm simply talking about that which is evident.

Do you think that's all there is?

No. But Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent..

What's the difference between your speculations and the existence of fairies?

[Hobbes' Choice]

I read it. Basic and obvious, and completely missing the point.

I make no claims - I simply don't know what happens subjectively at death. As with my debates with theists, you are making an untested claim - that there is nothing after death (just as they claim their own dogmas). Given that no one understanding how the movement of electrical signals between neurons can produce the phenomenon we call consciousness, you are necessarily simply touting your preferred option.

Scientists are still continually being surprised and sometimes the seemingly unlikely option turns out to be the answer. I want more information before I decide anything in this matter.

You are making a series of unfounded claims, I'm simply talking about that which is evident.
In fact NOTHING you say is substantiated, especially your amusing last sentence.

All bluster, says nothing. I expected better.

It's up to you to PROVE that you know how consciousness works since you are the one making a claim about death.

All I've said is I don't know which, according to you, is an "unsubstantiated claim"

Like I said, I've described in detail matters of evidence, you have nothing. hypotheses non fingo.

[Lacewing]

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent..

Then none of us should be saying anything because we don't really KNOW anything?

What's the difference between your speculations and the existence of fairies?

Well, I've not actually experienced fairies, but I HAVE experienced other things that have informed/inspired what I speak of. Don't most people speak from what they've experienced? What is evident/valid to one person, may not be evident/valid to another... because how can so many different perspectives ever agree on what is valid? But we can say, "Here's what I've seen... and here's the potential/implications that suggests to me -- for what that's worth to anyone else." The trouble seems to be when people claim to know ultimate truth for all.

[Arising_uk]

... Given that no one understanding how the movement of electrical signals between neurons can produce the phenomenon we call consciousness, ...

I'm not surprised, as they don't. Neurons use chemicals to 'signal' to each other. Electrical signals are used within the neuron to send the signal that activates the chemicals.

[Dubious]

The bottom line is why keep on speculating on things that can never be resolved either by logic without succumbing to paradox and non-sequiturs or science which can only mandate the reasons that identify existing problems. Neither God or a post-conscious subjectivity which no-longer requires what nature established as function, viz., a physical brain, fall within the realms of never-knowing and allows speculation to float wherever it will. Speculation which never ceases to be speculation defaults to zero or at best, a Planck Scale probability which only suffices to preserve the name.

[Greta]

... Given that no one understanding how the movement of electrical signals between neurons can produce the phenomenon we call consciousness, ...

I'm not surprised, as they don't. Neurons use chemicals to 'signal' to each other. Electrical signals are used within the neuron to send the signal that activates the chemicals.

Cheers, that's interesting.

For Hobbsy. Okay, so you understand how consciousness is produced, which is why you have complete confidence in the disappearance of a subjective perspective at death. You understand what happens and you know 100% what the results will be in the subjective domain, given that only loonies and the weak minded would believe their NDEs to be anything but illusions and dreams.

Given this full understanding of consciousness [sic] then adequate software (and maybe wetware) and sufficient computing speed and power, it should not be hard to produce consciousness in our machines. Just program in our tremendous knowledge of how consciousness is generated and bingo - instant consciousness!

[Belinda]

Dead people cannot be in any state of consciousness because their brains are inactive, except as the habitats of saprophytes.

If there is awareness which cannot, in the present state of scientific understanding, be called "consciousness" then that awareness must be of a different ontological order, a different form of being, from the material form of being.

If that ontologically separate form of awareness, of subjective being, exists in the absence of a biological correlate, a body, then there are at least those two independently-existing states of being. This describes Cartesian dualism.

I have no reason to belittle or disbelieve Greta's or anyone's NDE, And I'd look to someone who has experienced NDE and who is also articulate in language or some other art to enlighten me perhaps in ways that are new for me. However I can't see any reason why the validity of NDEs implies that NDEs persist after brain death. Isn't it more likely that NDEs are a subjective aspect of the living brain? Greta?

Dying is a process that has duration in time. However after the uncertain moribund state of living has finished, and disintegration is irretrievably happening the only theory of existence that fits with continuing awareness is Cartesian dualism.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent..

Then none of us should be saying anything because we don't really KNOW anything?

What's the difference between your speculations and the existence of fairies?

Well, I've not actually experienced fairies, but I HAVE experienced other things that have informed/inspired what I speak of. Don't most people speak from what they've experienced? What is evident/valid to one person, may not be evident/valid to another... because how can so many different perspectives ever agree on what is valid? But we can say, "Here's what I've seen... and here's the potential/implications that suggests to me -- for what that's worth to anyone else." The trouble seems to be when people claim to know ultimate truth for all.

All very well, but none of this gets to a suggestion that death is not indeed final.


Obviously a car, once melted down into its constituent parts can become a toaster and a fireguard, and once rotted, the atoms that once comprised a human, could form part of a tree. BUT. as the BWMness of the car atoms was all about their unique organisation, and the humanness about the unique arrangement of atoms, especially in the cerebral cortext, once that organisation is lost, lost forever being unique, there is no BWM, nor any Joe Smith.

There is no doubt that the unique organisation of a vehicle provides for its identity, as with each of us the brain actually and demonstrably changes with each new thing we learn and feel. Memories that comprise our biography can be lost with drugs and injury. To pretend that death is not final is to pretend that we are not reliant on our memories, our learning, and our behaviour for who and what we are.
We are not the same person we were yesterday, as each action makes new pathways and connections in the brain. Do you expect me to believe that without these unique pathways and structures, that we may persist in some way?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Dead people cannot be in any state of consciousness because their brains are inactive, except as the habitats of saprophytes.

If there is awareness which cannot, in the present state of scientific understanding, be called "consciousness" then that awareness must be of a different ontological order, a different form of being, from the material form of being.

If that ontologically separate form of awareness, of subjective being, exists in the absence of a biological correlate, a body, then there are at least those two independently-existing states of being. This describes Cartesian dualism.

I have no reason to belittle or disbelieve Greta's or anyone's NDE, And I'd look to someone who has experienced NDE and who is also articulate in language or some other art to enlighten me perhaps in ways that are new for me. However I can't see any reason why the validity of NDEs implies that NDEs persist after brain death. Isn't it more likely that NDEs are a subjective aspect of the living brain? Greta?

Dying is a process that has duration in time. However after the uncertain moribund state of living has finished, and disintegration is irretrievably happening the only theory of existence that fits with continuing awareness is Cartesian dualism.

Cartesian Dualism is a dead as a Dodo. It is baseless in fact and in evidence. And has nothing to say in this discussion.

An NDE is a "NEAR" death experience, not a deathly one. It is not a coming back from death, it is a near miss with death. Once the brain begins to function then the person returns. The fact that there was perhaps a cessation of personhood was temporary, and there is nothing to suggest in ANY example that the brain is not wholly responsible for ALL experience. SO that each NDE "experience" happens at the moments before and after any cessation of brain activity.

[Lacewing]

Do you expect me to believe that without these unique pathways and structures, that we may persist in some way?

I have no expectation of that from you. I'm not saying "we" persist individually and/or in any way that we're familiar with. I think there is something else to "us" than these individual identities. I don't think our identities or individual souls "go on" after the body dies. (I even suspect that we're NOT actually individual souls, but rather "collections".) Death of a body simply means that all illusion of separateness disappears. Awareness (of a different type) remains. The individual rivers flow back into the ocean. Ultimately, I think there is oneness... and it is not restricted or timed or modeled in any way that resembles our world. ALL IS FINE and BEAUTIFUL and IN PERFECT ORDER. It is only the illusion of separateness that generates angst. So, to let go of that and enjoy PLAYING with it while "here"... seems to be, perhaps, one masterful way to consciously join in on the co-creation of it.