Once you die, what will happen after death? (soul, humans, life)

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Maybe someone already said this, but the Near Death Experience survivors say you go to a heavenly place where you stay awhile

Alas there is no reason to take NDE testimony seriously at all on the subject of an after life because A) they did not die B) they were likely at a point in their life when they were at the lowest ebb of their coherence and rationality and C) They describe nothing that is not already linked to living brains being perturbed.

Originally Posted by skepticratic

And that's fine that you think that. As I said, I think the most likely answer is nothing happens. You just stop being. And that's a scary thought, but everyone dies eventually so I'm not going to fret about it.

I am the opposite in that I do not find it a scary thought at all. I think the opposite is scary: Eternal life. Sometimes I wonder if the people who really want there to be an eternal after life have really actually contemplated what that would mean or be like.

Let alone the kind of eternal after life proposed by many theists with a dictator in place.

Christopher Hitchens put it well once when he described being diagnosed with a terminal illness as being tapped on the shoulder at the best party ever, and being told you will have to leave soon, but that the party will go on without you.

While he found that sad, he did not find it scary or worrying, but a lot of theistic thought he described as being tapped on the shoulder at the party, being told you can NEVER leave.... and what is more while you are there the host INSISTS you have a good time.

I think the value of life is defined by its transience and rarity. The concept of an after life destroys that and replaces it with what I can only describe as a true horror. If there is a heaven and a hell I suspect they would both be the same place. The only difference being with hell, you will never be given the option to actually fully die. Ever.

Originally Posted by Snowball7

I am very close to someone who passed away in a terrible accident. The last expression locked on his face (after death) was the most peaceful smile I've ever seen. We all saw it.
I can't get into more detail, it's just too painful for me.

I have seen similar myself in people close to me. This is not relevant to an after life however. It is just that quite often there are endorphin's released in the brain at the moment of death.

There are reports in other contexts too. For example the process of drowning is horrible. But people who have been resuscitated after losing consciousness just before death.... report the last moments of drowning to be intensely and wonderfully pleasurable.

Originally Posted by Fleet

What you wrote above is your opinion, not a fact. I believe there is an afterlife because that is the only logical conclusion.

The only logical conclusion because you decree it is so? Or do you have any actual arguments couched in logic to support your assertion? Because last time I checked things do not become logical conclusions merely by decree. So the substantiation behind your claim would be interesting to see.

Originally Posted by Fleet

One person can live only for 5 years and another for 100 years. The person who only live 5 years only has short time of existence compared to an eternity? Why would one person be allowed to live a full life and no another one? Why would someone have a life filled with health problems and suffering while another enjoys a lifetime of good health? Illogical.

What you describe might be "unfair" but you have not at all explained why it is "Illogical". You seem to think for something to be "logical" that means it is obliged to sit well with you emotionally. That is not what logic means. In fact that is not even remotely close to what it means. You have wholesale invented an entire new field of "Logic" bearing no resemblance to the original other than having stolen the name.

Originally Posted by Fleet

That is not a logical conclusion. It is a depressing conclusion.

Again the opposite of "logical" is not "depressing". It is entirely unclear at this point that you even know what "logic" means.

Originally Posted by Age-enduring

Check out Near Death Experience dot com website. Plenty of people have been and come back.

Well no they have not and the clue is in the name. NEAR death experience. That is to say: The patient came NEAR to dying but did NOT die. Saying a "near" death experience is an experience of the after life makes as much sense as saying walking up to a plane in the US.... and then walking away..... is an experience of a day trip in Morocco.

Originally Posted by Age-enduring

The spiritual realm is real. God and Jesus are real.

To you maybe. There is no substantiation that I know of that suggests they ARE real however.

Originally Posted by Age-enduring

enough people give similar testimonies of having died and come back, with similar experiences on the other side.

That tends to be cultural more than anything though. Similar to how most people in the US who report Alien Abduction describe aliens that all match up. The descriptions are really close to each other. Likely not because they have all met the same aliens, but because the aliens all match up with the cultural image we have of aliens because of people like Stephen Spielberg.

I would actually find it more interesting in fact if NDE descriptions were wildly diverse, rather than all similar to cultural norms.

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

There is some interesting data here

Not really that interesting. All he does is describe the feelings of OBE. Many people have had those experiences. In fact everyone on this thread can have a minor one with a very simple experiment involving their hand. Where in mere seconds you can make it feel like the hand of another is actually yours and your being exists in that hand rather than your own.

Similar experiences can be illicted using drugs or extreme acceleration or centrifugal momentum.

That is not to say OBE itself is not interesting or useful. We have learned a lot about how the brain works from studying when it STOPS working correctly. And OBE is a great example of that. But in terms of trying to link it up with the idea there is an after life, OBE is less than irrelevant and entirely uninteresting.

Originally Posted by Nor'Eastah

Life has no chemical or physical component; a dead body (very recently dead) and a living one contain the very same chemical and mineral components. So what is "life" made out of?

Well there is one clear difference between a dead body and a living one. While the chemicals and components are the same, as you correctly point out, the PROCESSES those chemicals and components were engaged in are not.

And given that is the only difference we can find between the two, the answer to your question "What is life made out of?" would simply be that it is an emergent attribute from the underlying processes.

Originally Posted by Nor'Eastah

What is the difference between a healthy newborn, and a stillborn one? Nothing, chemically. But there is a difference.

Again yes there is a difference and it IS chemical and physical in terms of the processes that are ongoing IN those physical and chemical components. There may be no different in what the chemicals ARE but there is a difference in what they are DOING. So it is not entirely correct to say there is no chemical difference.

Originally Posted by Nor'Eastah

And what is the purpose of life?

This questions presupposes and assumes there IS a purpose. Why even make that assumption? It seems the better question to start with is "IS there a purpose of life" before you presume to establish what it might be.

Originally Posted by Nor'Eastah

Does life have any meaning at all?

I see no reason whatsoever that it does, other than the one we ourselves bring to it. Nor do I see any requirement for one. All too often people who seek a meaning to the universe and life seem to be operating under the idea that somehow life owes us one.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Bill790

Are you familiar with Dr. Eben Alexander's experience?

All too well and it is not good. He does a very good job of showing the differences in knowledge between a neuroscientist and a neurosurgeon. Because some of the medical crap he comes out with when trying to validate his personal experience as an experience of an after life is really embarrassingly wrong. I can go into this at much greater length if you want, but suffice to say his testimony is less than worthless. It is positively misleading.

Originally Posted by DONBY

The law of nature, according to Newton's law, energy can not be destroyed, increased, decreased, but transformed. Buddhist believes that the energy in our bodies are reincarnated.

That would be interesting scientifically if in fact some "energy" did in fact "go missing" at the point of death. THEN we could usefully say "Well it can not be created or destroyed so where did it GO" and there might be therefore SOME basis for contemplation of some energy lifting off the body and surviving death.

But to my knowledge no measured or evidenced energy does go missing. Nothing is unaccounted for. So evocation of the laws of conservation of energy do not really hold that much relevance.

Originally Posted by Dude111

The only ppl who know FOR SURE are those who "have died and come back" and say they have seen beautiful things.....

And yet I am not aware of a single person who has EVER "died and come back". Are you? I am aware of many 100s and even 1000s who have NEARLY died and been rescued. But that is all.

Originally Posted by Katiethegreat

You will be reincarnated,I've dreamt more than eight of my past lives so im pretty sure im going to be here again.

I have dreamt having sex with Lisa Hannigan. It does not mean that ever actually happened. Dreams are not evidence of much really. Alas.

Originally Posted by kitty61

I had to face this question head on and my reasoning and research found truth in reincarnation for those spirits who wish to return.

I am going to go out on a limb with a pure guess that this reasoning and research evidence will just happen to be the type that precludes you from being able to share it with us here in any form?

Originally Posted by NickofDiamonds

Personally, I want to believe, because otherwise, what's the purpose of having to go through all of this aggravation for maybe 80 spins around the sun ?

Who says there has to be a point to it? You bring your own point to it. And that point will be no less valid for it's being entirely subjective. In fact perhaps it is even more valid because you came to it on your own as a free being, rather than having your point and purpose dictate to you by design and decree.

I would feel there was LESS of a point to life, especially my own life, if I felt I was some puppet on a string on some pre-determined path entirely in the control of an author unknown. The very thing many theists assume gives life purpose, meaning and worth..... I find actually removes it.

Originally Posted by Ro2113

For some people non-existence is preferable to life.

And for many other people non-existence is what defines life and gives it it's value.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by AnthonyJ34

It is possible that there exists phenomena that science does not have the capability to explain. And that bothers many in the scientific community.

I do not think it bothers that many at all. Because many in our community realize that "X is possible" is not the same as saying "X is likely" or "X is credible" or "X is even relevant". I am not, and I am not aware of many if any in my community who are, bothered by acknowledging mere possibilities. The only thing that bothers the scientific community that I know of is lack of funding or any other bothersome hindrances to honest research. Other than that, very little bothers us much. Let alone the things people like you ascribe to us vicariously.

Originally Posted by AnthonyJ34

And it's arrogant for humans to assume that if science hasn't yet proven something to exist or be true, then that means the unproven something definitely, absolutely, unequivocally does not exist.

And yet few in our community ARE actually declaring any such thing. The majority appear in fact to think and talk like me which is that if something is unsubstantiated or not supported by the current data set..... then we simply call it unsubstantiated and unsupported by the current data set. And point out there is no reason to believe it to be true at this time.

Originally Posted by AnthonyJ34

But I think it pays to have an open mind.

And we do. But alas "an open mind" does not mean what all to many people think it means, or wants it to mean. All "having an open mind" means is to be willing to change your mind if the data set changes. Nothing more.

What many people want it to mean or thinks it means is "Despite the fact X is entirely unsubstantiated you should be willing to ascribe it some level of credibility anyway".

And THAT is not open mindedness. At all.

Originally Posted by AnthonyJ34

Yet we as humans (generally speaking) are arrogant to the point where we feel comfortable making absolute statements regarding the cosmos, about life, and about death.

A lot do yes, and as you say it is not a great thing. But at the same time I do not think it is AS BAD as you think it is. Mainly because I think, often merely to be clear and concise, people TALK in absolutes even when their thinking behind it is NOT absolute.

For example I have explained my thinking at length now on gods and the afterlife. I acknowledge the two main facts. A) There of course COULD be such things and B) there is currently NO evidence at this time to think there is and often some evidence to think there is not.

So there is nothing absolute about what I am saying there. It is as open minded as open minded gets. But when SPEAKING concisely I might happily say "there is no god" or "There is no after life". Because that is how a lot of our language works and how many people talk. But when asked to expound on what I mean by that.... I would then say all the things I said here.

So I think you are right many people think in absolutes. And I also think you are right that this is not a good thing. But I would merely say that I do not think the problem is as bad or widespread as you think. At least not in the scientific or atheist communities.

Originally Posted by AnthonyJ34

But it's arrogant for anyone to profess absolute knowledge about what may or may not happen after death. How can anyone know for certain what happens?

That is why I, for one, never profess "absolute knowledge". What I do profess is what is most likely on any subject given the data set available.

Now SOMETIMES the data set can be mixed and point to one or two diverse conclusions. So at that point one has to seek harder or make a judgement call.

But when it comes to the data set regarding human consciousness and the after life.... all the data really does, so far, only point one way. That might be uncomfortable for the "Well no one really KNOWS" crowd to acknowledge. But I tend to acknowledge things regardless of how comfortable or uncomfortable they make me.

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

At this point, nothing in science or philosophy completely rules out the idea that your consciousness, or some aspects of your "sense of existence" couldn't continue in some way or other.

That is a bit wishy washy as a statement though because science never rules ANYTHING out completely. For example nothing in science rules out that the speed of light in a vacuum is actually different in parts of the universe we have not observed yet.

So starting off a statement with "Well science does not rule it out completely" is actually to start off by declaring that you are about to use a lot of words to say precisely nothing at all.

What science DOES do is tell you what appears most likely given the current data set, while acknowledging the data set MIGHT change tomorrow. All it can do is say "Currently THIS is the data we have and BASED on that data this is what looks most likely to be true....."

And currently 100% of the Data Set links consciousness inextricably to the brain. 0% of the data set suggests any possible disconnect between the two.

So I think we can drop wishy washy non-statements like "Science does not completely rule it out" and replace them with sentences of some actual substance like "Everything science has told us so far not only fails to substantiate the idea of human consciousness surviving the death of the brain, but also offers us evidence against the suggestion".

More than that, based on the current data set, no one can say with any honesty.

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

despite the assertions of some folks who claim to be science-minded), science simply does not strongly favor one view over another.

Except yes it does for the very reasons I just described above. When 100% of the data set points to X and 0% of the data set points to Y, then you can quite honestly say that our science strongly favors X.

As you go on to say, our knowledge about human consciousness is far from complete. We have a lot left to learn. But that still does not change the fact that OF our currently limited knowledge, 100% points one way and 0% the other. And any concept of the after life can therefore be couched in literally nothing more than wishful thinking, or god of the gaps analysis.

And in fact when you shift into philosophy in your own post to support ideas of the after life, the very first thing you do is gravitate towards the rhetoric of "We do not know X" and "We do not fully understand Y". As if pointing out areas of ignorance actually validates or lends credence to what is otherwise a flight of fantasy. And when evidence fails to support the notion, you merely then start questioning the nature of evidence.

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

I find some of the anecdotes to be intriguing, but I've seen nothing so convincing that I would say, with much confidence that "I believe" afterlife anecdotes.

The anecdotes are indeed massively intriguing. Just not as evidence for an after life. Anecdotes and studies of things like OBE and NDE and so forth are massively interesting. Because one of the best ways we have so far of learning how the brain really works, is to observe examples of it that are NOT working correctly. So the study of things like NDE are massively important to our science of the brain and mind. We need a lot more of it. We just need to divest it of the religious motivation and complete woo that tracks it when we do make such studies.

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

If NDE occurs during flat-lined brain activity, then clearly some new theories of physics will be needed

The problem for many people peddaling NDE as evidence of an after life however is that NDE does not occur during a period when there is no activity in the brain. What sometimes happens is that is occurs during a period when the activity WE are measuring in the brain has flat lined.

But that does not mean NO activity. If I built a sensor that reacted solely and entirely to the color red and you walked into the room and the sensor flat lined..... would these people declare the room devoid of all color? Or would they realize that the instrument is not saying there is no color. Just that there is no RED color.

Further however the problem with such people is worse than this again because they merely ASSUME the reported experience occurred when the measuring tool flat lined. Is there a basis for that assumption? I have not been made aware of one. It could just as validly have occurred on the way into or out of that period of time.

So one invalid assumption is bad enough. But TWO? Ouch.

[shellytrokan]

I've spent the past six months researching the logic of ability, and what it tells me is that perfection means reflection; in practice, it's hard to know what this actually means, but I think reality does have a meaning.


To me, the point of reality is this website and this thread becoming all of reality; the making of The Empire Strikes Back, the dream of a life form, in 1854, E = mc2, British history etc etc.




I don't believe in Heaven and Hell, but I do believe that reality is a force that wants something - or that beyond reality there's an ulterior force that wants something.

[Bill790]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

All too well and it is not good. He does a very good job of showing the differences in knowledge between a neuroscientist and a neurosurgeon. Because some of the medical crap he comes out with when trying to validate his personal experience as an experience of an after life is really embarrassingly wrong. I can go into this at much greater length if you want...

Please do.


--

[Bill790]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Except yes it does for the very reasons I just described above. When 100% of the data set points to X and 0% of the data set points to Y, then you can quite honestly say that our science strongly favors X.

As you go on to say, our knowledge about human consciousness is far from complete. We have a lot left to learn. But that still does not change the fact that OF our currently limited knowledge, 100% points one way and 0% the other. And any concept of the after life can therefore be couched in literally nothing more than wishful thinking, or god of the gaps analysis.

Can science "strongly" favor X if, as you say, our knowledge is very limited? Or would science say we simply don't have enough data?

Galenwoof has argued that because we don't have a good "theory of consciousness," and because we don't how big "reality" is, we simply can't ascertain to any level of probability the answer to the question of, "what happens to consciousness when we die?" 100% of very little is still very little.

--

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by Bill790

Are you familiar with Dr. Eben Alexander's experience?

Are you familiar with his scandalous past?

• After repeated lawsuits, Alexander temporarily or permanently lost his surgical privileges at two different hospitals. For example, as Dittrich wrote, “In August 2003, UMass Memorial suspended Alexander’s surgical privileges ‘on the basis or allegation of improper performance of surgery.'”
• Alexander has been repeatedly accused of falsifying evidence related to his surgeries—a “court-documented history of revising facts,” in Dittrich’s description.
• One of the key stories which begins Alexander’s book is a near-collision with another parachutist—supposedly Alexander’s first near-death experience, and his first “proof of heaven.”

Maybe his story was nothing other than falsely manufactured?

...almost two years since the book came out, a lot of interesting facts have emerged that make the book seem less like a non-fictional account of heaven, and more like a convenient fiction to get a doctor in trouble out of his predicament and at the same time, make him filthy rich and immune to the criticism of the scientific and medical community. Now he has a website to suck in more readers, and is bragging about his next book to come out soon, called Map of Heaven.

“Proof of Heaven”?

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Bill790

Can science "strongly" favor X if, as you say, our knowledge is very limited? Or would science say we simply don't have enough data?

Galenwoof has argued that because we don't have a good "theory of consciousness," and because we don't how big "reality" is, we simply can't ascertain to any level of probability the answer to the question of, "what happens to consciousness when we die?" 100% of very little is still very little.

--

If truth is a matter of gauging probabilities, then even a small data set that is 100% in favor of X can be said to "strongly favor" X at this time. On the other hand, you don't have to be a statistician to realize that small datasets can be misleading or skewed, so I would be loathe to call what Nozz generically describes as "strongly favoring" without the qualifier at this time if the data set is small.

"Small" is of course a relative descriptor. Small relative to what? I think we have a good deal of evidence pointing to consciousness being dependent on biochemical / physical substrates, and a good deal of evidence pointing to death being the end of consciousness ... whereas we have literally no actual evidence pointing the other way on those issues. So I think Nozz is justified in calling that "strongly favoring" X, where X is consciousness requiring a physical body and ending when the physical body dies, because the data set is not small or sparse in that case.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Bill790

Please do.

Well he is a neurosurgeon who contracted a bacterial meningitis and fell into a coma and claims that during this period he experienced some visions and images. Images that, for him, were psychologically transformative. At least partially because he was already a "faithful Christian" in his own words. So one has to, from the outset, be wary of his biases.

The issue is that EVERYTHING about his account rests on one single core assertion. And I quote his words here not mine when he says that his visions of heaven occurred while his cerebral cortex was “shut down,” “inactivated,” “completely shut down,” “totally offline,” and “stunned to complete inactivity.”

The evidence he uses to substantiate the credibility of that assertion however does little more than show he knows very little about brain science. Why? Because he bases the claim on.... and again I quote him here not me.... “CT scans and neurological examinations”. But that is something that does not actually show or evidence neuronal inactivity, anywhere, let alone the cortex.

He also calls the damage to his brain at the time "Global". Which clearly it was not given his cortex is functioning pretty well now. He has, after all, written a book to cash in on his experiences..... which is hardly surprising given the issues he has had with his own career financially, ethically and so forth. It seems his experience gave him a financial windfall at quite a convenient moment don't ya think?

So unless he wants us to believe his cortex was destroyed but then grew back.... his descriptions of the issues he had are simply not accurate or informed. But they certainly sound sciencey and convincing to the lay man..... of which I am not.

The other unsafe core assumption he bases his view on is one that most NDE proponents do, and it is not a good assumption. He simply assumes that the visions and experiences he had were during the period when (he believes, falsely) that his cortex was "shut down".

Much like dreamers who think they dream while asleep but actually dream on the way into and out of sleep.... usually losing all sense of the passage of time when they do so (often people think they have been asleep for AGES after a dream, but they were in fact asleep for seconds, and it causes quite some disorientation. And thats a HEALTHY brain or a NORMAL sleeper, not a brain under the duress of illness and drugs and more)...... Eben can not assume his experiences occurred WHEN he thought they did or for AS LONG as he thought they did. He merely assumes this because it is congruent with the narrative he erects for himself due to the experience.

But do not take just my word for it. Let's turn to Mark Cohen who is on the edge of the world of scientific neuroimaging holding multiple appointments in UCLA. He points out that coma "does not equate to “inactivation of the cerebral cortex” or “higher-order brain functions totally offline” or “neurons of [my] cortex stunned into complete inactivity”. These describe brain death, a one hundred percent lethal condition."

You can read more here and here if you want even further expert opinion on the matter. This is not just me I hasten to repeat.

In fact high Alpha activity is common in coma (and in dreaming as it happens). Even with a "flat" EEG. Even when there is high activity, due to something called event-related desynchronization, an EEG can go "flat" because the EEG only measures the activity when it is synchronous. So high level A-synchronous activity will not be shown on an EEG.

As Mark points out Neurosurgeons are rarely trained much in Brain Function. It is like how a baker can spend his whole life baking breads and never have a clue what yeast actually is or how and why it functions the way it does. They just know how to employ it. And Eben is no different. He can work on the mechanics of a brain at a superfluous level, but he clearly displays a rudimentary knowledge of the actual low level workings of it.

Originally Posted by Bill790

Can science "strongly" favor X if, as you say, our knowledge is very limited?

Yes. Because as I said while the knowledge is not complete, it is not non-existent. And 100% of it thus far points in only one direction. So we can make some strong conclusions based on that fact. The conclusions MAY be wrong, and new data in the future might show that. But the conclusions at THIS time are warranted and educated.

Originally Posted by Bill790

Or would science say we simply don't have enough data?

In science we never, and likely WILL never, have "enough data". There is always room for doubt and new data on any subject. We know that, acknowledge that, and in fact this fact is the very heart of the scientific method.

But in science we still comment on, and draw conclusions from, the CURRENT data set at any given time. Especially when 100% of that data set points one way. We can safely say that any belief in an after life of any sort is at this time not just slightly, but entirely, unwarranted.

That does not, as many believers in an after life will hasten to point out, mean that there ISNT an after life. Perhaps there is. There could be. There is just no reason at this time to expect there to be. At. All.

[ConeyGirl52]

Is it possible that we were never meant to know for sure? Like, would our own life suddenly become cheap, and something we would be tempted to change as easily as we do our underwear?

If hypnosis/hypnotherapy is considered a science, studies have been done with people reporting NDEs (near death experiences). Those patients report the same or closely related experiences regardless of if they are atheists or religious zealots, or new-age spiritualists - the patient's sex, race and creed play no role in the reports.

Before the Hubel and satellite expeditions, what did man know about outer space? Was everything limited to the boundaries of what we could see?

Until the current boundaries on the topic are shattered, no one will be able to say for sure, or report back after death to let the world in on this great mystery. Again, maybe those boundaries were never meant to be broken.