Afterlife

[punkinside]

After reading the fundie revelation thread, some posts made me wonder...

Jon and Alice were talking about an afterlife. What I'm looking for here is a definition of what we might call an "afterlife"

In all probability, an "afterlife" could be defined as the transience of consciousness after the body is dead.

But if consciousness is the product of the chemical reactions that fire up synapses between neurons in the brain there can be no afterlife because these chemical reactions stop once one is dead. However, the energy produced by these synapses must be preserved.

Therefore, I postulate that there is in fact an afterlife, and even reincarnation: just not in the traditional sense. Our consciousness and memory survives our death in the form of energy, though it is no longer "conscious", and this energy goes on to power other living beings and/or phenomena.

Thoughts? Ideas?

[Lunchbox]

I would assume any situation where a person retains their concious and self-awareness after death would count.

[Alice Shade]

That theory could be pretty well applied to the physical body as well.

As it is buried, it decays, transferring it`s material into the ground around, and eventually, comes back up again, in form of plants->insects->birds->animals->humans.

Punkinside, the "afterlife" is generally recognised by most people, who use the term, as "staying conscious after death". Which, even if possible, has not a single fact backing it up, but quite a numerous collateral scientific proof against.

[jon_hill987]

There is no way to disprove conscious after death, as there is no way to talk to dead people. So though I doubt anything happens I will keep an open mind.

A specific afterlife on the other hand just sounds stupid, most likely made up as a bogeyman to make children do as they are told (or you will go to hell).

As far as I can see the only way to find out if there is something else that make use tick other than the chemical reactions in out heads will require a computer powerful enough to simulate all a human brain and to do said simulation and see if it is "alive". That computer will not be available for some time yet.

[Alice Shade]

Well, Jon, I have good reason, why "afterlife" is not really worth keeping mind open about.

Here`s simple reasoning...

1) Noone ever managed to confirm scientifically, that there is something aside from body to a person.

2) After death, body halts all biolological activity as a whole organism, and becomes food for billions of bacteria.

3) Every information-exchange contact with dead so far had been exposed as a hoax.

Considering the amount of people interested/researching/pondering the problem of afterlife, one would think, that there would be SOME iron-clad fact, if afterlife was possible. Yet, there are only zeros:

1) Soul? Was not ever detected. (What IS soul, even?)
2) Durability of soul? See above. If soul can not even be detected, how one can claim, that it`s durable enough to withstand physical death?
3) Reason of soul? Why would it exist in first place?

In the light of such reasoning, only two logical conclusions are possible:

1) There is no afterlife, and the whole concept is just a psychological defence against unpleasant realisation of death`s finality.
2) Afterlife, as it is formulated, occurs in such a way, that it is utterly impossible to verify the existance of "other side" from any of the sides, let alone transfer any influence. Therefore, talking about any "afterlife" is as silly, as asking "Bulb or parrot?" (Aka, attempting to compare conceptually-different things.)

[punkinside]

That theory could be pretty well applied to the physical body as well.

As it is buried, it decays, transferring it`s material into the ground around, and eventually, comes back up again, in form of plants->insects->birds->animals->humans.

Punkinside, the "afterlife" is generally recognised by most people, who use the term, as "staying conscious after death". Which, even if possible, has not a single fact backing it up, but quite a numerous collateral scientific proof against.

I never said the theory could not be applied to the body. I'm just saying that, while the traditional "staying conscious after death" definition is, like you say, without any backing.

But what I' m saying is that our consciousness indeed transcends our mortal coil, along with every other cell in our bodies. So it can be defined as an afterlife. That is why this thread was not so much centered in "is there an afterlife" but on what could be regarded as a new definition.

What might not be possible to prove is that this leftover energy keeps any of that distinctive consciousness.

[jon_hill987]

Years ago people who reported giant squid were laughed at (or at least not taken seriously), Back then we couldn't go down into the ocean to find out if they were right so there was no evidence for them existing. But the invention of deep see submersibles found huge numbers of weird and wonderful creatures that no one had even considered the possibility of.

Also consider this; No one really knows how a lump of goo which is mostly fat causes conscious. It is possible that there is something entirely different which does it. Perhaps when people really work out how the brain works it will be possible to prove one way or another.

I am not saying that there is continued existence after death, just that (for now at least) there is now way to prove there isn't. Keeping an open mind about such things doesn't harm anyone and may prevent you from looking stupid if they find out there is "life after death"

[Alice Shade]

Jon, that`s the same reasoning, that`s behind Christian God.

Noone knows exactly, how life came to be, so maybe there`s someone, who created it.
Noone knows exactly, how consciousness came to be, so maybe there`s a soul which causes it.

See difference between two statements? I don`t.

I think, that biological explanation is pretty concise on this - consciousness is a result of data processing in biological computer one calls brain. No more, no less.

And before you say something... Yes, computer programs do evolve on their own. People had already tried that - and received quite telling results. Namely, computer programs evolved in strict adherence to biological evolution laws. Thus, arranging a conscious computer is just a question of time and resources - precisely how it was already done naturally.

And, on a side note, I think that this topic warrants as much of open mind, as a question of God. Aka - prove me, that there is a soul, and I will keep an open mind about it. Prove me, that there is a God, and I will keep an open mind about it.

P.S. To Punkinside: Why redefine already established word? It is already known, that "afterlife" is a semireligious concept, stipulating about the "eternal" part of a human, and how will this part behave after physical death of a "mortal" part.
I don`t see any reason, why term "afterlife" should be somehow redefined - it`s already describing certain concept, and commonly accepted with such definition.

[jon_hill987]

I do see a difference, I am not saying that there is an afterlife, simply that there might be. The on the other hand Christians are saying that there is a god, not that there might be.

It could be that the lump of goo in our heads is responsible for consciousness, but until someone proves it I am undecided.

[Alice Shade]

If I`ll remove your lump of goo, you won`t be conscious anymore. Proof enough?

[jon_hill987]

Well, I won't be able to control my body, I know that much...

A nice offer, but I'll pass all the same. The thing about an afterlife is you have to die to find out if it exists. I'm not quite ready for that yet.

[Alice Shade]

That`s my point here. Any sense in talking about "afterlife" lies within the assumption, that dead could be contacted.

Since this axiom had been proven wrong by trial&error so far, I`m inclined to say, that there is no afterlife, which would have any bearing on this life.

[jon_hill987]

Oh, I'm sure it has no bearing on this life, to be honest you might as well just wait and see what happens when you die. It is going to happen sooner or later anyway (though later would be preferred). It is still interesting to speculate though.

[Alice Shade]

Now, that depends on how you define death.

Frankly, I think that afterlife is just a "shield" against unpleasant reality. Sort of "homemade" immortality, thought up just to reassure oneself, that no, you can`t just stop existing any moment.

As every self-delusion... It is hazardous, and should be omitted.

[jon_hill987]

Well yes, it can be dangerous, particularly when combined with words like "you will go to paradise if you blow yourself up in that tube station". Lets face it they are not gonna do it if they say "you might go to paradise" are they. But I'm sure those evil bastards would find another way of brainwashing people if they didn't have that one.

[Alice Shade]

Well, there`s an easy way to prevent that particular problem.

Just publically announce, that any place of suicidal bombing will be sprayed with pig`s blood - thus ensuring, that bomber will be unclean and kicked out from heaven.

Additionally, any dead terrorist can be buried wrapped in pig`s skin, thus again making them invalid for heaven.

[punkinside]

If I`ll remove your lump of goo, you won`t be conscious anymore. Proof enough?

Actually, if you remove any lump of goo you will die. Except for useless things like the appendix and others.

What you wanted to say is that you could remove some parts of his lump of goo, and while being alive, he would be a vegetable.

I think its been proven that cognitive functions (or whatever the name of the thought processes that are inherently "human") is restricted to a part of the brain I can't remember. The frontal lobe maybe? I'll pray for that later...

[Alice Shade]

No. I wanted to say, that if I`d remove his "lump of goo", he CERTAINLY won`t be conscious after that, in any case.


As for vegetable state, yes, frontal lobotomy will do that, but I certainly didn`t meant anything about it.

[AaronD]

I put my vote for no afterlife, since consciousness is, as you have said, just a series of impulses and nerve connections, and I don't think that it can transcend the body or escape from it.

[punkinside]

You've all been missing the point here.

The point was that there indeed is an afterlife, just not as it is traditionally defined.

[Alice Shade]

No. The point here is, that you are trying for what apologetic sources usually do - pacifying people by twisting explanations around.

I do not see, what is the freaking point in claiming it`s an "afterlife" (note the pattern - it`s "after" and "life", aka life after death), when it`s a natural cycle.

"Afterlife" is a clearly defined concept of retaining consciousness after physical death, and there is No freaking reason to redefine it to mean entirely DIFFERENT concept of natural cycle just to say that "everyone is right".

Newsflash - decomposing bodies do not actually live, y`know. So claiming they are experiencing "afterlife" is the same sort of lie, as telling a kid - "No, no, hamster is not dead, it`s just sleeping. Hamsters always smell and don`t breathe when they sleep deep, you know?"