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

[gelofogo]

I can wait to find out

[Matadora]

What ever it is I am 100% certain that it will be nothing like what humans or human invented religion have conjured up.

[PanapolicRiddle]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

...Without a theory to guide the interpretation of empirical evidence, the evidence can support many different interpretations. [/b]Hence the complications, and my insistence that we need a plausible scientific theory of consciousness.

That only makes sense using inductive reasoning. It's true using inductive reasoning it's seems possible to find evidence to support any idea. Which is why science is based in deductive reasoning.

While there isn't a comprehensive theory/understanding of consciousness, all evidence indicates it emerges from the brain. Therefore, no functioning brain probably means consciousness ceases as well. Again, it's really not complicated.

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

But in a lot of these cases, there is no independent reason to think the researcher committed fraud. This means that IF they didn't commit fraud, then the data would be considered significant. I am not personally comfortable assuming that all of these cases of possible fraud were actual fraud, and if they were not fraud, then there are some fascinating - and often repeating - anomalies out there.

Evidence of 'paranormal'/'parapsychological' phenomenon has never been duplicated in a controlled -i.e. laboratory- setting. When such experiments are performed, the results either support the null hypothesis, or are consistent with random-chance (which is also evidence of the null hypothesis). All evidence of such phenomenon appears entirely anecdotal; this is all that matters regardless of whether there's fraud or not.

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

And finally, I would reiterate what I said earlier: IF mind is nothing other than "the stuff a brain is made of" then "I" was never 10 years old because my brain was made of "different stuff" 40 years ago. Actually, given my "Buddhist" approach, this is fine with me. As I said, I think that the ego-based "I" that feels like it survives over time is largely an illusion, just like the Buddhists say. (The doctrine of "impermanence.") But, in a sense, what really matters to me - psychologically/emotionally - is the illusionary "I".

I think you might be on to something here, but it's not so much that you were never 10, but rather as we go through life, physical changes and experiences result in corresponding changes to the brain. My current 45 year old self is different from the 'self' I was at age 25, which was very different my 12 year old 'self'. It also seems very likely that assuming I live to reach 70, that future 'self' will be different from my current 'self'.

All this is consistent with evidence that physical brain changes as a consequence of development, experience, and aging result in changes to the 'self', i.e. consciousness/subjective experience. But none of this seems to provide deductive evidence of any kind of afterlife.

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

... if you look closely, you will see that many other theories of consciousness are also fully consistent with current evidence. Many forms of functionalism and panpsychism are equally consistent with current evidence (which is why virtually any scientist who has some training in philosophy will say "I don't know" or "It's a philosophical question, not a scientific one" when asked about the chances of consciousness after death). Without a theory to guide the interpretation of empirical evidence, the evidence can support many different interpretations. Hence the complications, and my insistence that we need a plausible scientific theory of consciousness.

Originally Posted by PanapolicRiddle

That only makes sense using inductive reasoning. It's true using inductive reasoning it's seems possible to find evidence to support any idea. Which is why science is based in deductive reasoning.

Actually, science is largely based on inductive reasoning. There is virtually no case in which any empirical data can be exhaustively sampled. Just because you have a sample of a thousand swans, and they are all white, it does not follow that there aren't some black swans in the world. Inductive reasoning is the process of inferring a general law or principle from the observation of particular instances. Not much science happens without that.

But, really, the induction/deduction distinction does not matter in this case because the consistency of neurological data with multiple theories of consciousness does not boil down to just the problem of induction. The problem is mostly rooted in the odd nature of subjectivity. A colorblind neuroscientist can learn every detail of every scientific theory in physics, chemistry, and biology, and study every bit of data that has been scientifically collected relating to neural processes and the recorded statements of people saying "I see blue," etc., and despite all of this, she will still not know what it is like to see blue unless, somehow, studying all of this objective data mysteriously triggers, in her mind, her own subjective sensation of seeing blue.

In other words, we can objectively correlate neural activity with the verbal behavior of patients saying "I see blue" etc., but we can only assume that they are, in fact, having the subjective sensation of seeing blue. I would argue that it is a reasonably safe assumption, but we should not lose sight of the fact that it is also a profoundly important assumption.

While there isn't a comprehensive theory/understanding of consciousness, all evidence indicates it emerges from the brain. Therefore, no functioning brain probably means consciousness ceases as well. Again, it's really not complicated.

And again I will reiterate that my theory is a form of physicalism. I am not suggesting that consciousness can ever happen without physical brain or functionally brain-like processes occurring. (I'm leaving room for the possibility that silicone/metal/plastic-based machines could someday be conscious.) But I will stick by my claim that some versions of panpsychism and functionalism are fully consistent with current theories of physics and empirical data. If any of these types of theories are correct, then there is nothing in principle to prevent my current brain processes from being replicated in another brain in some other realm of the multiverse. And if this happens, then (according to my arguments) "I" will be there, just as truly (or just as delusionally) as "I" will wake up at home tomorrow. Or, to put it another way, the same sense in which "I" can wake up in bed tomorrow, "I" can, in principle, also wake up in a different brain in some part of the multiverse, despite the death of this particular brain that I have now.

So, yes, if this particular brain dies, then I die. But this doesn't mean that I can't wake up (be "resurrected") in a different brain, with all of my memories intact. No God is required. All we need is physics in the context of an infinite (or at least a really, really big) Reality.

Bottom line: I think you and I are mostly in agreement. But I am taking the logic of physicalism a step further. If physicalism is true, then I think we can, in principle, be resurrected after the death our bodies in this life. No Divine Creator is necessary, and no "heaven" needs to exist. The only question, as I see it, is determining the probabilities of this resurrection. And, for that, we need a theory of consciousness.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Wartrace

All ya gots to do is ask somebody that is dead. My personal opinion is you die and cease to exist. You no longer have any cognitive functions.

That doesn't seem to be true, according to the Near Death Experiencers. You shed your body, but you retain your cognitive functions and your senses, oddly, and you can communicate with other spirit beings telepathically. You can also sense live people's emotions, and some report being able to know their thoughts.

I never believed in an afterlife until I read some of the Near Death experiences. I've even known a couple of people who went through that. It really makes you wonder.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by GER308

Decomposition.

That's what happens to the physical part of us. But is that all there is, or is there more to us? Consciousness is said to survive death of the physical body. That raises all kinds of possibilities.

[PanapolicRiddle]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

That doesn't seem to be true, according to the Near Death Experiencers. You shed your body, but you retain your cognitive functions and your senses, oddly, and you can communicate with other spirit beings telepathically. You can also sense live people's emotions, and some report being able to know their thoughts.

I never believed in an afterlife until I read some of the Near Death experiences. I've even known a couple of people who went through that. It really makes you wonder.

NDEs are not credible evidence of afterlife because in scientific terms they have major validity problems:

First, only about 20% of person who are revived from apparent medical death report experiencing them. This strongly indicates they are not an inherent component of the existence, but that only a fairly small minority of persons experience them in certain situations.

Second, the specifics of NDEs appear to be highly relative to the personality and particular beliefs of individuals persons. For instance, Christians report having vastly different types of NDEs than Hindus, and there's even a significant amount of variability among different branches of the same religion. This strongly indicates that it's an entirely subjective experience based on the particular personality and beliefs of each individual.

While a NDE might well be subjectively real to the person experiencing it (assuming they're aren't fabricating it), they aren't credible scientific evidence of an afterlife. I've made these same argument before and I don't think you ever responded.

[ylisa7]

Life will eventually go on for the ones who love me. I will be compost.

[BigCityDreamer]

The best way to find out is to ask any one of the 100 billion+ humans who have lived and died before you.

Problem is, none of them are around to answer your question. :-)

[AnthonyJ34]

Originally Posted by PanapolicRiddle

NDEs are not credible evidence of afterlife because in scientific terms they have major validity problems:

First, only about 20% of person who are revived from apparent medical death report experiencing them. This strongly indicates they are not an inherent component of the existence, but that only a fairly small minority of persons experience them in certain situations.

Second, the specifics of NDEs appear to be highly relative to the personality and particular beliefs of individuals persons. For instance, Christians report having vastly different types of NDEs than Hindus, and there's even a significant amount of variability among different branches of the same religion. This strongly indicates that it's an entirely subjective experience based on the particular personality and beliefs of each individual.

While a NDE might well be subjectively real to the person experiencing it (assuming they're aren't fabricating it), they aren't credible scientific evidence of an afterlife. I've made these same argument before and I don't think you ever responded.

It is possible that there exists phenomena that science does not have the capability to explain. And that bothers many in the scientific community. 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. Obviously there is no scientific proof that consciousness extends beyond physical death. And there is no way to prove scientifically that God or a God or some afterlife exists. But I think it pays to have an open mind. Humans are an infantile species; we have only been upright walking and possessive of a higher brain for a very short time period in our human evolutionary history (which is itself infantile compared to the purported age of the earth (not to mention the universe).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. We know a lot about many things. But I would wager that there is more that we don't know about. And there are probably many 'things' or 'realms' or 'phenomena' that we simply do not have the capacity or the intelligence to know about. And that realization should be very humbling.