Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

There's no doubt that afterlives happen, though not to everyone. The question is how long they subjectively last. Generally, a clinically dead person has a number of minutes of oxygen in their brain. So, yes, the people are dead to the outside world but they still living a life in a final dreamworld.

Actually, I suspect that it does happen to everyone, it is just that everyone does not remember, or maybe does not want to remember. I have been studying this for decades and think that life, death, and reincarnation are all part of the process that we call evolution. I know that idea is kind of "out there", but if one studies all of the different aspects of death/consciousness, it starts to make sense.

The question of how long they subjectively last is a good one. The answer, I think, relates to bonding. The brain, I think, takes six minutes to completely die, but other organs take longer and the body as a whole can take hours or even days for all cells to die depending upon the circumstances of the death. When does subjectivity end? With the death of the brain, the death of the whole body, or the demise of the chemical make up of the body? It is interesting to note that religions that believe in everlasting heaven try to preserve the body, but religions that believe in reincarnation tend to want to terminate the body to release the subject, often burning it. Is this because they suspect a bond between the subject and the body?

It is also interesting to note that the people who witness paranormal phenomenon regarding death also tend to witness it within a few hours or a few days of death -- which matches the breakdown of the body. Interesting. Also note that people, who have interactions with "spirits" are mostly people, who are at the scene of the death or people who have a bond with the deceased.

Sightings of "spirits" or "ghosts" after the first few days are almost always associated with a location or a person, who has a relationship with the deceased, or is in a bloodline, family, of a person who is deceased. All of this implies bonding with something physical. It does not imply an other dimension, although I suppose that is possible.

Gee

Maybe some would forget their NDE but I think it more likely that they had none, like being under general anaesthetic. When brains die, they don't die at the same rate. Different parts will fail first, depending on the condition. If the thalmus fails, for instance, then it's lights out. I've been interested in NDEs for some years now, and it does seem that those in coronary wards are the most likely to have a significant NDE. I'm guessing that heart-related deaths may result in a similar sequence of shutting down in the brain.

While there's objectively a few minutes of brain oxygen left at the time of clinical death, we cannot say how long that lasts subjectively. People have gone through NDEs that may only last for minutes, but it feels to them like days, or longer. The nature of these experiences vary and, if a person is undergoing intense fabulous or nightmarish experiences, that may well feel like eternity. It's possible that heaven and hell reside in that brief window of final brain operation with subjective time dilation.

As for paranormal observations after a death, I am skeptical. If detections of dead spirits are not imaginary, then there must be an extra dimension (or more) with a relationship to space and time that is closer to that of dreams than waking reality. Millions, maybe billions, live in hope that this is the case.

Putting aside practical concerns like suffering and grief, I see the problem of death is a problem of identity. IN a sense, we live forever in much the same way as the marines under Gunnery Sgt Hartman of Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket were said to live forever. Individual "cells" may fall away but the broader entity lives on, rather like the Ship of Theseus. Devotion to something greater is the key to eternal life, but it's an act of faith because they obviously won't be around to see what happens (unless undiscovered dimensions exist).

[Count Lucanor]

WRONG

In Philosophy and even in science, point of reference is important.

So for the record and point of reference we are now here

"Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology"

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.

If you want to debate whether certain concepts and/or observations are 'scientific' go to the science of philosophy section of
the forum.
Here we are discussing the speculative and hypothetical first - and its scientific validity will by necessity be questionable

I’m not off-topic. I have addressed directly the 3 questions presented in the title of the topic. The OP, posted by none other but yourself, explicitly asks to look beyond religious convictions and engage in discussions about empirical evidence. Maybe that’s not what you really wanted, but then it’s your wrong, not mine.

[Count Lucanor]

And for you Count Lucanor and others who want to hold to scientific dogmatism, consider this



First Carl Sagan and now Stephen Hawking, still commucicating from the other side
- Maybe we should add Albert Einstein

It’s laughable that you wanted to make a point from authority and bring up quotes from two scientists that did not believe in an afterlife.

[godblog]

There is no current “life” let alone an afterlife.
Look closely at your alleged physical existence.

Subatomic particles? NO!!!
Subatomic electromagnetic energy NOT PHYSICAL
Consciousness NOT PHYSICAL

I THINK THEREFORE I AM - NOT PHYSICAL-

We are a singularity consciousness (1) in a universe of
Nothingness (0) vibrating 100111000 and creating everything your consciousness can ever imagine.

[Stoppelmann]

I think it is compelling evidence the you can bit by bit remove consciousness with spoon by taking our matter from the brain. This indicates the necessary link between consciousness and neural matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibfBDKiw1ac

What you remove by this experiment is the connection, as you say, but where is the source? If you removed a diode from an old radio, it didn't work either, but the signal went on. I think that religion indicates more that consciousness is primary and matter secondary, it is just that we can't remember anything prior to our material selves, so we have no idea what that would be like. So, rather than talking about an afterlife, it would be more equivalent to a continuance of life without the biology, which would be a considerable amputation of our sensory input. Therefore, I think there can be no continuance of life as we know it, but perhaps a new experience?

[Gee]

We need hard, empirical evidence, that there can be consciousness independent of a physical body, if we are to begin to entertain the idea that consciousness survives death of a subject. No such hard evidence has ever been provided.

A few thousand years ago, when we first learned that the moon pulled the tides in and out, what do you think the "hard evidence" for this was? Maybe a large hook that came down from the moon? Maybe the people who testified that they were almost washed away by the incoming tide? Or maybe it was simple observation and a disinclination to believe in coincidence?

If we continue to keep our eyes closed, put our hands over our ears, and hide in the closet, then we will never learn anything!

Gee

I hope that a few thousands years didn't just go by for nothing. We know better now. Anyway, your analogy doesn't apply to the case in question, since there was an observed phenomena (the tides) and there was more than enough hard evidence that they were real. It was then open to find the cause. No one was just hypothesizing that they could exist. Not the case with an afterlife, which has NEVER been observed, and cannot be observed, since by definition it can only occur in another supernatural domain to which the living don't have access to. A good hypothesis could be made IF we had observed in this natural domain of the living any hard evidence of a disembodied consciousness, but we haven't.

Count,

Actually, my analogy does apply. You are forgetting some relevant information that applies like the idea that the "supernatural" is an explanation now, as it was then. Yes, we knew about the tides and we knew what caused them to move -- Neptune. The supernatural was our explanation, and we knew that the "Gods" controlled the tides, tsunamis, water spouts, and even sea monsters.

We knew about the tides and we knew about the moon, what we did not see was the connection between them. Right now we know about life and we know about death, but do not see the connection between them. Just like before, some people would like to use the "supernatural" as an explanation, but I would not. I do not believe in the supernatural; although, it appears that you do.

You seem to think that the supernatural can not be proven, so it does not exist, yet you still want to argue about it. This appears to be a position where you are making an argument from ignorance. Please get out of the closet before responding.

Gee

[Sculptor1]

I think it is compelling evidence the you can bit by bit remove consciousness with spoon by taking our matter from the brain. This indicates the necessary link between consciousness and neural matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibfBDKiw1ac

What you remove by this experiment is the connection, as you say, but where is the source? If you removed a diode from an old radio, it didn't work either, but the signal went on. I think that religion indicates more that consciousness is primary and matter secondary, it is just that we can't remember anything prior to our material selves, so we have no idea what that would be like. So, rather than talking about an afterlife, it would be more equivalent to a continuance of life without the biology, which would be a considerable amputation of our sensory input. Therefore, I think there can be no continuance of life as we know it, but perhaps a new experience?

The radio analogy is false, since that would imply all humanity are robots led by a cosmic DJ with no ability or volition; mere dumb receivers spewing out pop and fake news.

The simple fact is that the brain is not a receiver in any sense. We are our DJ, and create our programs, but we can't communicate except through physical communications.

And then you compound your poor argument by doubling down with a special case pleading - oh well we forgot everything we were before we were born - how convenient :

And then you end with a false conclusion which is a pure non sequitur.

[Stoppelmann]

The radio analogy is false, since that would imply all humanity are robots led by a cosmic DJ with no ability or volition; mere dumb receivers spewing out pop and fake news.

The simple fact is that the brain is not a receiver in any sense. We are our DJ, and create our programs, but we can't communicate except through physical communications.

And then you compound your poor argument by doubling down with a special case pleading - oh well we forgot everything we were before we were born - how convenient :

And then you end with a false conclusion which is a pure non sequitur.

It must be nice being certain ...

[Sculptor1]

The radio analogy is false, since that would imply all humanity are robots led by a cosmic DJ with no ability or volition; mere dumb receivers spewing out pop and fake news.

The simple fact is that the brain is not a receiver in any sense. We are our DJ, and create our programs, but we can't communicate except through physical communications.

And then you compound your poor argument by doubling down with a special case pleading - oh well we forgot everything we were before we were born - how convenient :

And then you end with a false conclusion which is a pure non sequitur.

It must be nice being certain ...

There is nothing more certain than a spoonful of brain matter.

[Gee]

Some months ago I started a similar post here:

"There is No such thing as Death"

https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... =4&t=17971

Losely based upon Planck's theory

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
― Max Planck

Although I agree with Planck and regard consciousness as fundamental, I can not agree that there is "no such thing as Death". Death is part of the process, which would not work without it.

BUT, as I think further on the subject - Even if consciousness is universal, it does not mean individual consciousness continues
after death.

The real question still remains as to whether an individual can maintain his consciousness without his living biological body

Supposedly and hypothetically ghosts are such entities.

But I am not a ghost hunter - My concern is whether the 'psyche' of the departed can remain intact
and exist either for reincarnation in another body or if spiritual in nature, ascension to a higher plain

This is one of the things that people simply do not understand about this subject, and it is very difficult to explain. What we call "spirit" works through the unconscious aspect of mind. The difference between the conscious aspect of mind and the unconscious aspect of mind is not about where they are seated in the brain, it is about how they work. The conscious aspect is intentional, rational, and logical; it works within time, has static thoughts, and can be compared to classic physics in its functionality. The unconscious aspect is reactionary, is not rational, but works with balance, it is not logical because it ignores time, has fluid emotions, and can be compared more to quantum physics. They are very different, but both aspects reflect the subjective self.

When the subjective self loses its bond with the physical body, it becomes more fluid, less whole, unless it has a bond with another person or a place, like a "haunted house". Bonds are often created through emotion -- strong emotion. You might think of the unconscious as a bucket of water and a recently deceased spirit as an ice cube that has been dropped in the water. It is still there, all of it, but it has no recognizable form after a while.

Again there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that this is possible.

Now give me just one case where it has been proven

Consider this from the medical website PubMed

[Evidence that suggest the reality of reincarnation]

Ernesto Bonilla
PMID: 26299061
Abstract
Worldwide, children can be found who reported that they have memories of a previous life. More than 2,500 cases have been studied and their specifications have been published and preserved in the archives of the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia (United States). Many of those children come from countries where the majority of the inhabitants believe in reincarnation, but others come from countries with different cultures and religions that reject it. In many cases, the revelations of the children have been verified and have corresponded to a particular individual, already dead. A good number of these children have marks and birth defects corresponding to wounds on the body of his previous personality. Many have behaviors related to their claims to their former life: phobias, philias, and attachments. Others seem to recognize people and places of his supposed previous life, and some of their assertions have been made under controlled conditions. The hypothesis of reincarnation is controversial. We can never say that it does not occur, or will obtain conclusive evidence that it happens. The cases that have been described so far, isolated or combined, do not provide irrefutable proof of reincarnation, but they supply evidence that suggest its reality.

Quote source:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26299061/

You are talking about Dr. Ian Stevenson's work at the University of Virginia. He was making some real progress in this subject, but after he died, religious people worked hard to smear his reputation as they see reincarnation as an opposing religious belief. Even his information in Wiki had been completely rewritten after his death. I was very disappointed. I believe his book, 20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation, is still available and is a recommended and interesting read.

I also watched the video that you recommended in an earlier post. "Here’s what he saw while he was ‘dead’ | Bruce Greyson for Big Think". It was also very interesting.

Gee

[Gee]

What negates that belief is a question: What would be its purpose; can anyone come up with a reason why there should be life after death which resumes in an endless array of reincarnations? If so, would it refer only to humans?

To me it looks exactly like evolution, which is much like an endless array of reincarnations. No, it would not refer only to humans, but to life.

Gee

[Stoppelmann]

There is nothing more certain than a spoonful of brain matter.

LOL, a spoonful of dead cells, certain as death ...

[Gee]

There is nothing more certain than a spoonful of brain matter.

LOL, a spoonful of dead cells, certain as death ...

I suspect that a spoonful of blood would have similar results after a while. Is that where the idea of "life's blood" came from?

Gee

[Sculptor1]

There is nothing more certain than a spoonful of brain matter.

LOL, a spoonful of dead cells, certain as death ...

Oh you mean life requires healthy living matter?

[Kamizan]

Thought is just a product of consciousness

Unless, as Kant and Schopenhauer demonstrated very convincingly, time and space are generated by consciousness, then it is meaningless to say that thought is a ‘product’ of it, just as it is meaningless to speculate about what happens ‘after’ you die (and, incidentally, what ‘caused’ the universe). This is what Wittgenstein, a student of Schopenhauer, is, at least indirectly, alluding to in my quote. Any answer we can give to the question what happens ‘after’ you die, presupposes a spacetime — an ‘after’ — that is generated by a brain which no longer exists, and so cannot even in principle answer what we seek to know about it. This is why all these discussions go round and round in circles without issue, or, actually, much interest. And why, as UG Krishnamurti (amongst others) pointed out, only those who do not live wonder what death is.