Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is it possible another that there is some other component of ourselves/our experience that is not neurological, or that we can't detect?
Yes. It is not so much either that it is not integrated with neurological function or even that it is not part of our overall consciousness, it is just that it isn't really adequately understood or seen as important enough to study in any way that would benefit humanity in general.
Essentially it is the sub conscious, but not as one is taught the subconscious as being. It effectively seems to be something which is conscious of itself and able to relate information to the surface conscious aspect of human consciousness (the 'me' we each strongly identify as being) and apparently can act as an interface between surface consciousness and collective consciousness (aka 'GOD' etc) as well as more generally - create experiences for the surface consciousness to undergo, be the 'inner voice' 'higher self' intuitive center etc.
Quote:
While it's certainly possible, currently, there's no evidence of this.
There are ways to get evidence but as per usual, the evidence is often misunderstood and even misrepresented depending on the beliefs of those interpreting said evidence.
Essentially any evidence given from the sub conscious to the surface conscious is purely subjective and therefore next to useless as being acceptable as any kind of proof to those who desire it from others.
It seems to be that any interaction with this aspect of the sub conscious requires that the surface conscious approach it in a certain manner which is not demanding. Approach is critical and always reflects the surface conscious attitude and expectations but is non compromising in relation to surface conscious beliefs, demeanor, will to control, ego etc.
Sub conscious is always a step or two ahead of surface and far more 'in the know'. A student/teacher relationship between the two aspects is the best way for the surface conscious to position itself.
Quote:
Consequently, after the brain ceases to function, the most reasonable conclusion is that we'll be completely insensate - that is, incapable of experiencing anything at all, including entirely subjective experience like thoughts.
Said the surface conscious. The most reasonable thing to think is that it really is unknown what the individual consciousness will experience upon the death of the body. Having 'reasonable conclusions' based on what is observed from this side of deaths door is simply using such evidence to bolster that type of belief system. There isn't even any point to that belief.
Quote:
So to me, there's compelling evidence to believe there is no afterlife, and none whatsoever to believe there is.
It won't make the slightness bit of difference what you believe if - upon the death of your body you still find yourself existing. The evidence may well compel you to believe what you do, but it will serve no purpose to you if there is an 'afterlife'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
The phrase "We don't know for sure" simply says nothing at all. If I offer you a closed box and claim there a three headed pink imp inside you can pedantically say "Well I do not know for sure there that is or is not until I open the box and look". And pedantically you are 100% correct. The fact remains however you have no reason at all to think there is such a thing at all, let alone in the box, and you have many reasons to think the opposite.
Your analogy regarding a box containing a 'three headed pink imp' is not really the same as the idea of afterlife.
What does the box represent?
What does opening the box represent?
There are a lot of reasons why people think about the possibility of afterlife and these are perfectly natural.
It is not about being pedantic. If anything, one is being pedantic about the evidence which gives them justification to believe the opposite 'beyond reasonable doubt' but all the evidence can show is what the box looks like. What the box looks like does not in any way provide any clue as to what is in the box.
"We don't know for sure" is a far more accurate and honest thing to say than 'there is' or 'there isn't'.
Quote:
The same is true of human consciousness operating independent of the brain. We can throw around the cop out phrase "We can not know for sure" all we want, but the fact still remains we have zero reasons at this point to think it happens and several reasons to think it does not. We may not know for "sure", as we know nothing for 100% sure in this life and in science, but the fact remains 100% of what we do now fails to lend any credence to the claim all the same.
Why though? What is the point in having 'several reasons to think it does not'? How does it help? What difference does it make to the individual?
What about the idea of consciousness surviving the death of the brain has any bearing on what human beings know about the universe already? If it were the case, how would that change your world view?
What about the idea of consciousness surviving the death of the brain has any bearing on what human beings know about the universe already? If it were the case, how would that change your world view?
Leaving aside many issues dealing with consciousness after the death of the brain/body, one area of concern right now would have to be that if consciousness does not rely on a functioning brain, how are we to consider and treat those living bodies that are considered brain dead?
If you say so but given you have offered nothing new in numerous pages, you could have beaten this retreat much sooner. But you have just shown "Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of forum posting" to be true again, so the rule states you are now more likely to do so yet again.
But I do not believe there is a "last word" on a topic like this. More data may come in and the job of someone like me is to maintain an open mind to rationally consider that data when it is finally presented. If you ever find any that supports your case, think of us, and return.
we get down to the conservations laws and emergence. Wonder what they say? Hamm.
The claim ... radios are where the music is? Let's Take it apart. I don't see any music, ah ah, so there is no music.
Yes. It is not so much either that it is not integrated with neurological function or even that it is not part of our overall consciousness, it is just that it isn't really adequately understood or seen as important enough to study in any way that would benefit humanity in general.
What about the idea of consciousness surviving the death of the brain has any bearing on what human beings know about the universe already? If it were the case, how would that change your world view?
The trouble is thinking that "it" started in you. we have emotional needs and intellectual understandings. We have to decide what we need to form our belief. We have to be honest really.
The brain dies "you" the human part of 'you" stops functioning. Thats what it looks like.
The physics says we don't see anything coming from nothing and going to nothing. What we see is changes taking place and energy being passed through the system. So no nothing after we die is not valid. And it is completely different than "something" but we have no idea what.
the laws I use. thermodynamics (open or closed), conservation of anything, and emergance to support my beliefs. for example: nuclear reactions do not employ conservation of atoms but go deeper into conservation laws. If our understanding stops at conservation of atoms we need to stop telling everybody they are wrong when we don't see it.
now for analogs because thats all we have. its uniformatarinaism. or simply use what we do see to describe things we don't see.
cells in you can die and the pieces are either used again or expelled. They don't go away. but that cell is not there anymore. That's what we can say. And your body, or any living body, is/maybe driving the reactions in that cell. From inside the cell, They "LOOK" planned. It's just life.
The life in you did not go away because the cell died. The life goes on. And As a matter of fact, We are less than a cell in the universe.
and finally common sense. to a caterpillar the butterfly does not exist. Every law known says that caterpillar changed. not one conservation law was violated. It doesn't matter what the caterpillar knows or sees unless it wants proof. The proof of something is the conservation laws. They are real. The butterfly can land on the caterpillar and tell it, I am you. The caterpillar will not "believe", because it can't.
There is not god of the bible. The god in the bible is a parent. I don't meet my "dad" again. That's all we can say with any certainty. Intellectually that is. emotional belief is different. make up anything you need to help the emotional part of you. No-nothing to make us feel good? sure whatever.
Your analogy regarding a box containing a 'three headed pink imp' is not really the same as the idea of afterlife.
Good because it is not intended to be. To make an analogy two things do not have to be the same. There just has to be a common element between them. The "box" has nothing to do with the after life. The point I was making was not to do with the after life, but the _type of thinking_ people offer when they claim there is one. Fallacious thinking, that people are able to identify in clear examples like my "box" but still somehow fall for in cases they are emotionally invested in. Thats the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
There are a lot of reasons why people think about the possibility of afterlife and these are perfectly natural.
I 100% agree. There are strong reasons, perfectly natural, that compel people to get invested in the idea there is an after life. I would not dispute that for a moment. The issue is these reasons are not relevant. And they lead to bias, fallacy and more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
"We don't know for sure" is a far more accurate and honest thing to say than 'there is' or 'there isn't'.
Correct. But even more accurate is saying "We do not know for sure, but nothing we do know suggests there is one, and everything we do know suggests there is not. If it is accuracy you want, that is as accurate as we can be at this time and until the data set we have changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
What about the idea of consciousness surviving the death of the brain has any bearing on what human beings know about the universe already? If it were the case, how would that change your world view?
Every piece of data, no matter how small, that changes related to my knowledge of reality changes my world view. If you want to know how THIS particular data would change my world view then I am afraid I do not do hypothetical. Get back to me if such data comes in, then ask me how the data changed me or my world view.
I have no interest, when I seek data, in whether it will change my world view or not, or how. I am simply interested in what is true. End of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
we get down to the conservations laws and emergence. Wonder what they say?
You do? I can recommend several books on the subject to let you know what they say.
Leaving aside many issues dealing with consciousness after the death of the brain/body, one area of concern right now would have to be that if consciousness does not rely on a functioning brain, how are we to consider and treat those living bodies that are considered brain dead?
There is no question that consciousness does rely on brain functioning, while the brain functions and consciousness is seen to be active.
How do we consider and treat those living bodies that are considered brain dead now?
The trouble is thinking that "it" started in you. we have emotional needs and intellectual understandings. We have to decide what we need to form our belief. We have to be honest really.
Perhaps we can be more honest if we chose not to believe?
Quote:
The brain dies "you" the human part of 'you" stops functioning. Thats what it looks like.
Sure it does. Effectively the 'you' is gone, at least from the point of view of the other 'yous' left to clean up the mess.
Quote:
The physics says we don't see anything coming from nothing and going to nothing. What we see is changes taking place and energy being passed through the system. So no nothing after we die is not valid. And it is completely different than "something" but we have no idea what.
Right.
Quote:
the laws I use. thermodynamics (open or closed), conservation of anything, and emergance to support my beliefs. for example: nuclear reactions do not employ conservation of atoms but go deeper into conservation laws. If our understanding stops at conservation of atoms we need to stop telling everybody they are wrong when we don't see it.
What?
Quote:
now for analogs because thats all we have. its uniformatarinaism. or simply use what we do see to describe things we don't see.
How do you know that you are not existing within a simulation?
Quote:
cells in you can die and the pieces are either used again or expelled. They don't go away. but that cell is not there anymore. That's what we can say. And your body, or any living body, is/maybe driving the reactions in that cell. From inside the cell, They "LOOK" planned. It's just life.
The life in you did not go away because the cell died. The life goes on. And As a matter of fact, We are less than a cell in the universe.
Interesting that you are making the argument from the presumption that 'you' is the body..'the life in you' as you say.
How do we know that WE are not the life in the body?
Quote:
and finally common sense. to a caterpillar the butterfly does not exist. Every law known says that caterpillar changed. not one conservation law was violated. It doesn't matter what the caterpillar knows or sees unless it wants proof. The proof of something is the conservation laws. They are real. The butterfly can land on the caterpillar and tell it, I am you. The caterpillar will not "believe", because it can't.
Talking butterflies...?
Quote:
There is not god of the bible. The god in the bible is a parent. I don't meet my "dad" again. That's all we can say with any certainty. Intellectually that is. emotional belief is different. make up anything you need to help the emotional part of you. No-nothing to make us feel good? sure whatever.
How do you know that the whole universe is not the inside of a gods brain?
Last edited by Rotagivan; 04-17-2015 at 03:21 PM..
Good because it is not intended to be. To make an analogy two things do not have to be the same. There just has to be a common element between them. The "box" has nothing to do with the after life. The point I was making was not to do with the after life, but the _type of thinking_ people offer when they claim there is one. Fallacious thinking, that people are able to identify in clear examples like my "box" but still somehow fall for in cases they are emotionally invested in. Thats the issue.
just wondering...how do you know there is no afterlife? Or is that just belief based upon evidence which leads you to beyond reasonable doubt in relation to the idea?
Quote:
I 100% agree. There are strong reasons, perfectly natural, that compel people to get invested in the idea there is an after life. I would not dispute that for a moment. The issue is these reasons are not relevant. And they lead to bias, fallacy and more.
Well...yes they can do. They don't need to, but yes they can do.
Quote:
Correct. But even more accurate is saying "We do not know for sure, but nothing we do know suggests there is one, and everything we do know suggests there is not. If it is accuracy you want, that is as accurate as we can be at this time and until the data set we have changes.
However, in the mean time everyone is still going through that dying process, so we don't know for sure either way simply means the question won't go away. Your answer to the question might be 'no - when I die, that will be the end of me' which is fair enough as you are free to believe whatever you want to. My answer might be 'No - I have no idea...I can't say for sure,' which is perfectly fine.
Which of those two answers is more likely to cause someone to lead to bias fallacy and more? I would say that someone who believes in something is more likely to make issue of things. Someone who believes will be tempted to berate and criticize someone who does not share in and be supportive of their belief.
Quote:
Every piece of data, no matter how small, that changes related to my knowledge of reality changes my world view. If you want to know how THIS particular data would change my world view then I am afraid I do not do hypothetical. Get back to me if such data comes in, then ask me how the data changed me or my world view.
I was asking rhetorically because I don't see that anything about the idea of consciousness surviving the death of the brain has any bearing on what human beings know about the universe already.
Quote:
I have no interest, when I seek data, in whether it will change my world view or not, or how. I am simply interested in what is true. End of.
just wondering...how do you know there is no afterlife?
I never made such a claim anywhere. I am not convinced you have actually read my posts now.
To repeat my position: We do not know the answer, and we do not know everything about human consciousness, but what we do know all goes in one direction and not the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
Well...yes they can do. They don't need to, but yes they can do.
And yet, as this thread demonstrates strongly, there is no evidence there is an after life but the reasons people offer for there being one are fallacious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
Which of those two answers is more likely to cause someone to lead to bias fallacy and more?
If you are emotionally invested in either, then bias and fallacy is likely to follow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
I don't see that anything about the idea of consciousness surviving the death of the brain has any bearing on what human beings know about the universe already. And what is true?
And as I say, its "bearing" is irrelevant to me. My interest is solely in attempting to establish, to the best of my ability, what is actually true, or what is actually reality. The "bearing" any one answer, in any direction, has on that is irrelevant to me. So the reality of the situation, whatever it is, might have no bearing on anything at all. And that does not bother me or interest me. Knowing what that reality is however, does.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
