What to happen when you die?

[Innipunn]

I wan't some philosophical reflections upon what happends when you die...

Maybe we just wind up in another world with only people similar to ourselves?
One world for assholes and one world for capitalists one world for christian fundamentalists and so on...

 

[--]

well freedom from the physical body and it's limitations would be good, but release from all notions of self and value scales, good/bad, etc., would be even better. just pure being/not being. no lenses, no veils, no perceptions. this is what i'm looking forward to.

 

[George]

For me, I see death as the absolute end. Once you die, your body starts to rot away, this includes your brain, which is your central nervious system per-say. Thus any thoughts and memories are gone....forever. Its only your actions when you live that will keep your spirit alive.

 

[Alteredmindeath]

We are flowers that slowly wilt away.

"Born into a feild of flowers that slowly wilts away"

-Satyr of Satyricon.

 

[Carline]

For me, I see death as the absolute end. Once you die, your body starts to rot away, this includes your brain, which is your central nervious system per-say. Thus any thoughts and memories are gone....forever. Its only your actions when you live that will keep your spirit alive.

Agree

 

[amf]

For me, I see death as the absolute end. Once you die, your body starts to rot away, this includes your brain, which is your central nervious system per-say. Thus any thoughts and memories are gone....forever. Its only your actions when you live that will keep your spirit alive.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[MFJ]

I agree pretty much with what's been said... but something interesting to keep in mind is the idea that our thoughts and memories are actually energy- and as many of you know energy cannot be destroyed or created, it must only change forms...

 

[Innipunn]

That makes one think... Nice theory!

 

[amf]

I agree pretty much with what's been said... but something interesting to keep in mind is the idea that our thoughts and memories are actually energy- and as many of you know energy cannot be destroyed or created, it must only change forms...

Yes, same as for the rest of your body (and everything else in the world for that matter). The chemical signal substances in your brain (ie your memories) are eaten by maggots and bacteria turning them into heat energy.

 

[The Radiant Morning Star]

I believe all that you've stated here, I believe that when an organism (Particularly a human since you and I are human) dies there is no after-life, there is no heaven. You can only achieve life after death through your influences and actions while you were alive. In dying we all contribute to the universe by our rotting corpses serving as fertilizer! How about that!

 

[SonOfNun]

These threads are always so damn depressing. I pretty much agree with the general consensus here, but not because I want to, but because logic dictates so. I wish I was oblivious enough to believe in some vision of Heaven/Hell, but who knows, maybe some day I will. At the very least, so I don't have to deal with such hopeless, morbid thoughts of death. I try to explore all religion and thought on life and life after death though, so the doors are by no means closed. As much as I love this earth, it's hard to find peace in the hopelessness of non-existence, but maybe it is the rest, well-deserved after so many years. I love life, as we all should, and it blows my mind to just be able to breathe in and say "wow, life." We won't have that forever, revel in it. I'd like to see where Mr. V stands with all his interesting cosmic views. Oh, and the fact that I'm listening to Orphaned Land right now is making me incredibly spirtual feeling in an Egyptian way. I hope my spirit lives on, to freely float above for all eternity. Complete freedom to live amongst the stars and sky and unravel all we could never discover during life. I think that may be what I settle on at some point. [/philosopher mode]

 

[TrueBeliever]

For me, I see death as the absolute end. Once you die, your body starts to rot away, this includes your brain, which is your central nervious system per-say. Thus any thoughts and memories are gone....forever. Its only your actions when you live that will keep your spirit alive.

If:
-an infinite number of possibilities as to the reality of existance are possible (which is logically true, as every "fact" is subject to doubt)
Then:
-the possibility of complete physical death such as you speak of is infinitely unlikely

 

[analtampon]

there must be energy(a host/soul) for an organism to live/be contolled - so maybe when you die the energy which lets you live find's it's way to a fertilized egg and you continue-HAHA I just made that up off the top of my head and it probably makes no sense

 

[amf]

If:
-an infinite number of possibilities as to the reality of existance are possible (which is logically true, as every "fact" is subject to doubt)
Then:
-the possibility of complete physical death such as you speak of is infinitely unlikely

That is the same thing as saying:

- If there is an infinite number of possibilities as to the answer to the mathematical question "what is 1+1?" (which is logically true, as every "fact" is subject to doubt)
Then:
-Then the possibility of the answer being "2" infinitely unlikely.

There are no proofs or reliable observations that gives us reason to suspect that living beings house an immaterial soul or spirit which contains the beings thoughts, memories and personality (etc). All observations tells us that is what we have the brain for.
Same goes for what fate befalls the brain after death, all observations tells us that it decomposes.
In the same way as all observations and tests tells us that 1 + 1 = 2.

Therefor, theorizing that the brain (and thus the beings thoughts, memories and personality) is destroyed after death is based on observations of the world.

Where as theories about an immaterial soul which survies death of the body is based purely on belief and contradicts our observations of the world.

Just as if one would say 1 + 1 = 3, a theory that contradicts tests and observations (hm.. I've written that that word too many times now ).

 

[TrueBeliever]

To use the example of a dream, because that is the closest thing we have to an alternate reality:

If in a dream you can fly
But you may not necessarily be able to fly when you wake up
When you "wake up" 1 + 1 might equal 3.

Confirming that 1 +1 = 2 comes down to counting, which is an observation with about as much merit in this world as observing that you are flying would have in a dream (observations can be flawed).

While I might even argue that 1 + 1 could equal anything, I recognize the need to trust observations in order to function. Observing that corpses rot only proves the belief in total mental and physical death if you can prove that humans are only chemical systems (i.e. no higher conscienceness). You can't observe what happens to the conscieness after death, and you can't observe or test whether humans actually have some kind of higher conscienceness. But I think it is fairly logical to say that humans are more than just self-sustaining chemical reactions, the reasons for which I'm not going to get into unless someone specifically disagrees.

 

[amf]

While I might even argue that 1 + 1 could equal anything, I recognize the need to trust observations in order to function. Observing that corpses rot only proves the belief in total mental and physical death if you can prove that humans are only chemical systems (i.e. no higher conscienceness).

Yes, I agree. Except that the burden of proof should be on proving that humans HAVE a soul. (If I want to convince you that there are pink flying elephants it is I who have to prove that they exist, not you who have to prove that they don't exist).

You can't observe what happens to the conscieness after death, ...

By using tests we can see that the brain is active when we think; it is the organ doing the thinking. At death the brain is destroyed (as it needs oxygen to function). And if the organ that contains our thinking is destroyed it seems logical to assume that its thoughts and memories is lost with it.

and you can't observe or test whether humans actually have some kind of higher conscienceness. But I think it is fairly logical to say that humans are more than just self-sustaining chemical reactions, the reasons for which I'm not going to get into unless someone specifically disagrees.

Yes, we have not observed any kind of higher consciousness, that is one reason why I doubt its existance. I strongly disagree with saying that humans are more than chemical reactions, so please elaborate your thoughts.

A Question:
What would be the purpose of the soul. As we already have an organ for thinking (the brain), what need is there for another immaterial organ (the soul) to do the same work?
(In case you disagree that the brain does the thinking; What is then the purpose of the brain if it doesn't have any function?)



Anyway, so far we agree on this:
No higher consciousness = no afterlife.
Higher consciousness = possible afterlife.
Right?

 

[--]

i would say that experience is sufficient evidence for belief in life after death. however this is belief, nothing that can be justified with scientific method. since (any out of body, near death, or so called religious experience) does not allow carry-ons, we can't take our science kit. so proof is impossible. however these experiences often times leave the individual with greater understanding or comfort than any experimental data.

now what about belief in science? the story is never complete. science requires our belief in a certain interpretation of data. and when something new is discovered, it is no problem to shift a whole set of beliefs to work with the new theory. but is the belief any different? scientists stand by their beliefs as much as religious fanatics or anyone else. can you say that data is any more or less justifiable than another means of interpretation? i think that depends on the individual. i mean there are lots of people who believe dinosaurs never existed. as well as people who believe in aliens.

so absolutes are out of the question. all that really matters is what goes on inside your head. science, experiences, (religion and religious text or whatever pink elephants you want to believe) are all means to the same end. in the same vein this is where you get accounts of experiences through a cultural lens. a christian will interpret things in relation to god, the bible, etc. a paranoid person may say it was because of the aliens. a scientist will provide physical evidence to explain. who is right? you can say it's a fact that your body will die, but the beliefs that you take with you are entirely a personal choice.

 

[TrueBeliever]

No higher consciousness = no afterlife.
Higher consciousness = possible afterlife.
Right?

yeah

I strongly disagree with saying that humans are more than chemical reactions, so please elaborate your thoughts.
Anyway, so far we agree on this:

Basically, why would a chemical reaction perpetuate itself?

all that really matters is what goes on inside your head

Well yeah, but that takes all the fun of argueing about it.

 

[--]

Well yeah, but that takes all the fun of argueing about it.

no! arguing is always fun and it challenges your own ideas and maybe changes them.

 

[amf]

Time to revive this discussion!

i would say that experience is sufficient evidence for belief in life after death. however this is belief, nothing that can be justified with scientific method. since (any out of body, near death, or so called religious experience) does not allow carry-ons, we can't take our science kit. so proof is impossible. however these experiences often times leave the individual with greater understanding or comfort than any experimental data.

now what about belief in science? the story is never complete. science requires our belief in a certain interpretation of data. and when something new is discovered, it is no problem to shift a whole set of beliefs to work with the new theory. but is the belief any different? scientists stand by their beliefs as much as religious fanatics or anyone else. can you say that data is any more or less justifiable than another means of interpretation? i think that depends on the individual. i mean there are lots of people who believe dinosaurs never existed. as well as people who believe in aliens.

so absolutes are out of the question. all that really matters is what goes on inside your head. science, experiences, (religion and religious text or whatever pink elephants you want to believe) are all means to the same end. in the same vein this is where you get accounts of experiences through a cultural lens. a christian will interpret things in relation to god, the bible, etc. a paranoid person may say it was because of the aliens. a scientist will provide physical evidence to explain. who is right? you can say it's a fact that your body will die, but the beliefs that you take with you are entirely a personal choice.

Of course we can never be 100% sure about something, that's why it's called a theory. But when all observations and all knowledge we have tells us one thing it seems fairly justified to hold that for true (until it's proven wrong).

I disagree with saying science is about faith or belief in a religious sense. The big difference is that science is based observations of the world. Anyone can, with the right equipment and background knowledge, make their own tests of the theories and see that they do in fact match the real world.
If assumptions are made without direct observations it is because they fit into the model of how the world works, and if proven wrong they are abandoned.

Religion on the other hand can not be tested in the same way and is often based on ideas that directly contradict with what we can observe. The idea of an immaterial soul has no observations or tests that supports it, nor can we assume its existance because it fits into our model of the world, because it doesn't. So believing in a soul is down to faith.

Same as for other religions. Christians, for example, belive that an old book is the words of their god. The book says that Jesus could walk on water, an act that anyone can test and see is impossible for a human. A human body with a density less than water goes against all biological knowledge we have. Christians believe this despite what all observations of the world tells us.