Life after death

Cupcake_Crisis

If there is such a thing as an after life some people are getting SOOOOO haunted!

PopePalpatine

I'd imagine heaven would get boring after the first few million years, especially if you're a celebrity constantly getting pestered by ordinary people.

mad muffin

My life was severely crippled after death

Call Me Jimmy

I think what we'll all find if we have a moment of consciousness at our last breath is that we have framed everything in the wrong way. Possibly we'll realise how we related to ourselves all our lives was erroneous. It's odd because I think as most people say 'we' (as we know and identify ourselves) go into oblivion, no more functioning etc. but on the other hand I just wonder if the experience of life isn't more of a time-share kind of scenario.

TomoBhoy

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is hard to know what the article is trying to say, which I guess is the result of having science illiterate people write science articles, which alas happens all too often in our media and is something Ben Goldacre has lamented at length in the past.

For example the opening blurb of the article refers to "Clinical death" and then in the second paragraph of the article says "The brain has shut down completely".

The two are not the same thing. The author should learn which one she is trying to talk about and stick with it, or at least adumbrate the differences as she understands them and then make clear which one she is using and why.

The article also says nothing about HOW certain things were established. It says 40% of patients described having awareness while clinically dead. How did they establish this? They took their word for it maybe? How did they establish the memories and/or experiences of the patients actually were during the time period they claim they were?

It sounds like the whole study was just anecdotes without a single control used to verify any of it. So the study tells us nothing new at all. Just more anecdotes to add to the innumerable ones we have already.

The claim from Sam Parnia that the brain can not function at all when the heart stops, is simply false too. There has to be a period of heart death before brain death comes. Sam however is a known proponent of OBE and NDE and the after life. He really.... really really.... wants it to be true but has no evidence it actually is.

In fact it was Parnia who attempted recently to verify OBE by doing a controlled study. The results of which I have never managed to find, likely because it gave him no positive results so he ditched or buried it.

His approach was to do a double blind depositing of unmissable objects in places in random operating rooms where people having OBE in typical locations (above the operating table being the most common) could see them, but no one else would know they are there. But the objects would be so incongruous to the environment you simply could not miss it.

So far I have heard of NO positive result. Not even one. If even _one_ person came back and said "I was floating over there.... out of my body..... and did you know there is a large LED display on that cupboard there with the number 545 on it?" or "I was floating over there and.... you are not going to believe this.... over there on that storage unit there is..... I feel weird even saying it..... an artificial bonsai tree made entirely of pink sex toys"...... I would sit up and take notice that MAYBE there is something going on here.

But no. Not. One. Positive. Result.

But anecdotes in non controlled environments abound, all based on people swearing blind that the patient has information no one believes they could or should have.



As above. Clinical death != Death.



Thats my issue. You would have to establish that that actually _did_ happen before making demands people explain it. However the post from seamus will teach you many things.



You have a funny definition of "dead" that no one I have met before uses. Certainly no one in the scientific or medical community.



Did you read it? Or just the article?

Plus a million

FlashR2D2

I sawghost once, itr was vcooll.

Augmerson

There might be some kind of "life" after death but the way I see it, everything that was you, your memories and your personality - that is gone. It's tied to your body. Maybe a spirit or some energy within you lives on.

Maybe it's as simple as your corpse rotting and sustaining bacteria, worms, maggots, birds, dogs and foxes that would feed on you (presuming you aren't buried above ground) and you becoming part of the food chain and the circle of life.

Maybe you add to the collective unconscious of the world somehow.

nozzferrahhtoo

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

You don't know that for certain.

We do not know ANYTHING for certain. That is how science works. What we do is we place things on a probability continuum of truth. The more substantiated a claim is the further along that continuum it goes, but it never get to the end where "certainty" resides.

What we do know about human subjectivity and experience and consciousness is that 100% of the evidence we have thus far links it inextricably to the brain and the survival of the brain. 0% of the evidence we have thus far indicates any kind of disconnect or possibility of the existence of the former without the latter.

So while pedantically you are correct, we can not be "certain" about it.... we certainly are as "certain" about it as science currently allows us to be. There simply is not a speck.... of a shred.... of an iota..... of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that even begins to lend a modicum of credibility to the idea human awareness and consciousness survives independently of the brain. Much less from anyone on THIS thread.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

It take as much belief to say that nothing happens after death then saying you go to heaven

Except that is simply not true, for the reasons I just laid out above. When all the evidence points at conclusion X while no evidence at all points at conclusion Y..... then it does not take "just as much belief" to subscribe to X over Y.

Betty Bloggs

I don't think the scientists said anything about there being a heaven or a full life after death. They are just looking at the possibility of an awareness or consciousness remaining for a certain period of time (few minutes in this case) after death. Could this theory not be looked at on it's own without bringing in belief arguments about a heaven/afterlife that continues indefinitely?
It doesn't have to turn into a believer/non believer debate.(regarding religion).

Red Pepper

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We do not know ANYTHING for certain. That is how science works. What we do is we place things on a probability continuum of truth. The more substantiated a claim is the further along that continuum it goes, but it never get to the end where "certainty" resides.

What we do know about human subjectivity and experience and consciousness is that 100% of the evidence we have thus far links it inextricably to the brain and the survival of the brain. 0% of the evidence we have thus far indicates any kind of disconnect or possibility of the existence of the former without the latter.

So while pedantically you are correct, we can not be "certain" about it.... we certainly are as "certain" about it as science currently allows us to be. There simply is not a speck.... of a shred.... of an iota..... of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that even begins to lend a modicum of credibility to the idea human awareness and consciousness survives independently of the brain. Much less from anyone on THIS thread.

Except that is simply not true, for the reasons I just laid out above. When all the evidence points at conclusion X while no evidence at all points at conclusion Y..... then it does not take "just as much belief" to subscribe to X over Y.

Nozzferrahhtoo, as always, tells it how it is. I salute you Sir.

I expect "Defender of Faith" regrets his either/or statement. He thinks that believing or not believing require the same "faith". It's like he is equating belief to whether you support Man United or Man City - the difference is that atheists don't support any football team anywhere.

Zillah

Betty Bloggs wrote: »

I don't think the scientists said anything about there being a heaven or a full life after death. They are just looking at the possibility of an awareness or consciousness remaining for a certain period of time (few minutes in this case) after death. Could this theory not be looked at on it's own without bringing in belief arguments about a heaven/afterlife that continues indefinitely?
It doesn't have to turn into a believer/non believer debate.(regarding religion).

It's not even that. The only claim that comes out of this study is "People feel weird things as their brain starts to shut down."

That's literally it.

Defender OF Faith

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We do not know ANYTHING for certain. That is how science works. What we do is we place things on a probability continuum of truth. The more substantiated a claim is the further along that continuum it goes, but it never get to the end where "certainty" resides.

What we do know about human subjectivity and experience and consciousness is that 100% of the evidence we have thus far links it inextricably to the brain and the survival of the brain. 0% of the evidence we have thus far indicates any kind of disconnect or possibility of the existence of the former without the latter.

So while pedantically you are correct, we can not be "certain" about it.... we certainly are as "certain" about it as science currently allows us to be. There simply is not a speck.... of a shred.... of an iota..... of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that even begins to lend a modicum of credibility to the idea human awareness and consciousness survives independently of the brain. Much less from anyone on THIS thread.



Except that is simply not true, for the reasons I just laid out above. When all the evidence points at conclusion X while no evidence at all points at conclusion Y..... then it does not take "just as much belief" to subscribe to X over Y.

You make a good point with regard to not having the same faith it take to believe in heaven or hell & I probably shouldn't have said that however you cannot negate the fact that it does take a certain degree of faith to believe that nothing will happen after your death you have faith that God wont be there to hold you accountable for your action and this is something that no matter how hard science try will never be able to disprove as science will always be limited to the materialistic side of our world.
But for some reason the atheists doesn't seem to like this word even though faith come into various element of his life such as having Faith that your partner wont cheat on you, that your son will grow to help you. that everything will be ok and so on.

Spring Onion

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

You make a good point with regard to not having the same faith it take to believe in heaven or hell & I probably shouldn't have said that however you cannot negate the fact that it does take a certain degree of faith to believe that nothing will happen after your death you have faith that God wont be there to hold you accountable for your action and this is something that no matter how hard science try will never be able to disprove as science will always be limited to the materialistic side of our world.
But for some reason the atheists doesn't seem to like this word even though faith come into various element of his life such as having Faith that your partner wont cheat on you, that your son will grow to help you. that everything will be ok and so on.

Is that a mealy-mouthed apology? :rolleyes:

Philo Beddoe

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

You make a good point with regard to not having the same faith it take to believe in heaven or hell & I probably shouldn't have said that however you cannot negate the fact that it does take a certain degree of faith to believe that nothing will happen after your death you have faith that God wont be there to hold you accountable for your action and this is something that no matter how hard science try will never be able to disprove as science will always be limited to the materialistic side of our world.

I believe that consciousness is an emergent property of a living brain. From that I deduce that consciousness ceases when the brain dies. I don't see why either of these ideas require faith.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

But for some reason the atheists doesn't seem to like this word even though faith come into various element of his life such as having Faith that your partner wont cheat on you, that your son will grow to help you. that everything will be ok and so on.

You're conflating varying definitions of the word faith. Faith when used regarding God etc. is a belief in something regardless of absence of evidence or despite evidence to the contrary - it is viewed as a virtue among religious people to have this kind of faith.

Faith when used in the sense of having faith in your partner is just another word for trust. You trust that your partner will not cheat on you based on their declarations of love for you, the strength of their character etc.

nozzferrahhtoo

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

you cannot negate the fact that it does take a certain degree of faith to believe that nothing will happen after your death

Except it takes no faith at all. And what is baffling is that I explained to you _exactly why_ it takes no faith. I will repeat it:

1) 100% of the evidence we have links human consciousness, subjectivity and awareness directly and inextricably to the brain.
2) 0% of evidence we have shows any kind of disconnect or the ability to have the former exist without the latter.

So absolutely ZERO faith is required to simply acknowledge that all the evidence currently shows your consciousness will die with your brain and NO evidence currently suggests it will survive afterwards.

Where is the "faith" in that evaluation exactly?

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

you have faith that God wont be there to hold you

No. I do not. Which means at this point you have two choices. Ask me what I think and listen to the reply. Or tell me what I think and simply be this wrong, this often.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

faith come into various element of his life such as having Faith that your partner wont cheat on you

If you believe that about your partner solely on faith, without any supporting evidence, then you simply have my sympathy and I advise you to find a healthier relationship. My belief on the matter is entirely evidence based however. So once again: Speak for yourself, stop pretending to speak for me.

Defender OF Faith

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except it takes no faith at all. And what is baffling is that I explained to you _exactly why_ it takes no faith. I will repeat it:

1) 100% of the evidence we have links human consciousness, subjectivity and awareness directly and inextricably to the brain.
2) 0% of evidence we have shows any kind of disconnect or the ability to have the former exist without the latter.

So absolutely ZERO faith is required to simply acknowledge that all the evidence currently shows your consciousness will die with your brain and NO evidence currently suggests it will survive afterwards.

Where is the "faith" in that evaluation exactly?

You have faith that these evidences are correct, you have faith that the scientist conducting these experiments have done it well, you have faith that NO evidence would in the future prove that another form of consciousness exist without the brain.I mean after all were are science is merely tip toeing in understanding the realm of consciousness.
Basically no matter how hard you try to avoid "faith" and run away from it you will always have it in one way or another.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you believe that about your partner solely on faith, without any supporting evidence, then you simply have my sympathy and I advise you to find a healthier relationship. My belief on the matter is entirely evidence based however. So once again: Speak for yourself, stop pretending to speak for me.

You cant be with your partner 24/7 during these time you have faith that they will stay faithful to you I mean if you have faith that your partner will break your trust and cheat you might aswell find another one

nozzferrahhtoo

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

You have faith that these evidences are correct

Nope. Wrong again. As I said if you insist on telling me what I think, rather than asking me what I think, then you are simply going to keep being very wrong, very often.

I am very heavily trained in science and epidemiology. And in reading and interpreting studies and scientific papers. And I am well capable of repetition of results which is the core premise of science.

Once again: No faith required. You and your theist cohort have such an abundance of "faith" I guess that the only way you can interpret the world view of others is to parse it (falsely) through that lens.

To repeat however, you will simply stop being so wrong if you switch from telling other people what you think they think.... and simply stop and ASK them what they think and why instead. Try it sometime. Discourse will likely prove more fruitful for you. And them.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

you have faith that the scientist conducting these experiments have done it well

Again entirely false. I know EXACTLY how to interpret their results and their methodologies. I do not simply believe they did their job. I know EXACTLY how to check their work and raise questions about their methodologies and standards. Perhaps YOU have to simply take their word for it, but I do not. So speak for yourself, and stop pretending to speak for me.

Plus as I said already above, repetition is a massive part of science. One does not simply read a science paper and believe it. One either repeats it oneself or waits for other people to do so. And only when REPEATED attempts to verify the results of original claims come up positive do we start to adopt the truth of the verification into our discourse.

You would do well to learn more about the science process because the sole result of your posts thus far are to highlight that you simply have no idea at all about it. What you are saying so far lands on my ears in EXACTLY the same way as it would for you if someone said to you "Oh yes I love American Baseball and I think David Beckham is the best player there was there". You _instantly_ know you are talking to someone who simply has not the first idea of what it is they are talking about and making assertions about.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

you have faith that NO evidence would in the future prove that another form of consciousness exist without the brain.

Now you are not simply wrong, but egregiously making up falsehoods that directly go against everything I have said to you thus far. You are simply playing a record and not pausing once to read a single thing I actually wrote.

But I am happy to repeat myself in the vague hope it sinks in for you:

EVERY claim in science is placed on a probability spectrum, a truth continuum, based on how much substantiation there is for it in the PRESENT MOMENT. As such EVERY claim in science is subject to moving up and down that spectrum/continuum in the light of any new evidence that comes to bear.

So what you simply asserted about me, and science, could in fact not BE more wrong if you tried. It is simply as wrong as wrong gets. I am perfectly open to the possibility that my world view on human consciousness may be modified by new data in the future. I am just not seeing any reason to find that possibility a likely one. But I am 100% open to it if and when it occurs.

All I do, have done, and will do, is comment on the data set available to me at the time of commenting and I REPEAT for you that 100% of the data at this time shows human consciousness to be linked inextricably to the brain and the survival of the brain. 0% of the data set at this time suggests otherwise.

So the claim that human consciousness can operate independent of the brain, or following the death of the brain, is simply devoid of any argument, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate it. Much less so from you. As such it is merely at the NULL point on the probability spectrum/continuum to which I referred.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Basically no matter how hard you try to avoid "faith" and run away from it you will always have it in one way or another.

Repetition of assertion does not make fact. You keep asserting I have faith and you keep failing to demonstrate a single case where I in fact do.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

You cant be with your partner 24/7 during these time you have faith that they will stay faithful to you

Again: speak for yourself. YOU might rely solely on faith in this regard, and you have my sympathy that you are in a relationship where faith is all you have to draw on.

In MY relationship however my judgement that my partner will most likely stay monogamous to me is evidence based. And like I explained to you above about science, no one can be "certain" about anything but judgement are on a belief continuum and the evidence I have to hand at this time strongly suggests the conclusion I have reached on the subject.

I can merely wish you well in the future in finding a relationship where your conclusion as to the fidelity of your partner is actually based on reality, and not merely faith. I, thankfully, am happily in such a relationship and I repeat that you have my sympathy for not being in one too.