Why is life after death really not possible?

[bimbo36]

God says its possible .But you have to believe some pseudoscience like stuff though , that is all

[Itoero]

I've read she was cryogenically frozen.

Cryogenic freezing is the process of preserving a dead body with liquid nitrogen.

Advocates believe that scientists will one day work out how to warm the bodies up and bring them back to life, by which time doctors might be able to cure cancer and other diseases which are untreatable today.

 

Today I learned ...

Cryonics is the low-temperature preservation of people who cannot be sustained by contemporary medicine, with the hope that resuscitation and restoration to full health may be possible in the far future.

The first corpse to be cryopreserved was that of Dr. James Bedford in 1967. As of 2014, about 250 bodies were cryopreserved in the United States, and 1,500 people had made arrangements for cryopreservation after their legal death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryonics

In physics, cryogenics is the study of the production and behaviour of materials at very low temperatures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryogenics

Cryopreservation or cryoconservation is a process where organelles, cells, tissues, extracellular matrix, organs or any other biological constructs susceptible to damage caused by unregulated chemical kinetics are preserved by cooling to very low temperatures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryopreservation

Even if she is frozen quickly enough, her cells would slowly dehydrate.

How fast does dehydrating goes at -196C ? Edited June 23, 2017 by Itoero

[Bender]

I've read she was cryogenically frozen.

Cryogenic freezing is the process of preserving a dead body with liquid nitrogen.

Advocates believe that scientists will one day work out how to warm the bodies up and bring them back to life, by which time doctors might be able to cure cancer and other diseases which are untreatable today.

 

Today I learned ...

Cryonics is the low-temperature preservation of people who cannot be sustained by contemporary medicine, with the hope that resuscitation and restoration to full health may be possible in the far future.

The first corpse to be cryopreserved was that of Dr. James Bedford in 1967. As of 2014, about 250 bodies were cryopreserved in the United States, and 1,500 people had made arrangements for cryopreservation after their legal death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryonics

In physics, cryogenics is the study of the production and behaviour of materials at very low temperatures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryogenics

Cryopreservation or cryoconservation is a process where organelles, cells, tissues, extracellular matrix, organs or any other biological constructs susceptible to damage caused by unregulated chemical kinetics are preserved by cooling to very low temperatures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryopreservation

How fast does dehydrating goes at -196C ?

The first link is of particular interest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryonics#Preservation_injury

 

It mentions dehydration and damage of cells and connections between cells, which are pretty important in a brain. Chemical fixation appears to alleviate those issues, but it remains unclear whether these chemicals themselves don't make reviving the cells impossible.

 

In short: there is quite a lot of skepticism about existing methods, and I put myself in the camp of the skeptics. She was frozen with a technique that was never proven, and while it it possible that humanity one day invents a proper way of cryopreservation of humans, I expect that the freezing step will be an important part of that future technology.

[Thorham]

If there's more than the physical world, then perhaps it is possible.

[Itoero]

She was frozen with a technique that was never proven, and while it it possible that humanity one day invents a proper way of cryopreservation of humans, I expect that the freezing step will be an important part of that future technology.

I agree.

Trehalose is a ubiquitous molecule that occurs in lower and higher life forms but not in mammals.

Trehalose is synthesized as a stress-responsive factor when cells are exposed to environmental stresses like heat, cold, oxidation, desiccation, and so forth.

Water-bears (Tardigrada), microscopic multicellular organisms, can survive freezing by replacing most of their internal water with the sugar trehalose, preventing it from crystallization that otherwise damages cell membranes.

 

Perhaps Trehalose is the way to go for cryopreservation.

 

edit:In recent years, trehalose has also proved useful in the cryopreservation of sperm and stem cells and in the development of a highly reliable organ preservation solution.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2708026/

Edited June 24, 2017 by Itoero

[nec209]

It's truly fascinating thinking about it. Before we experienced the life we are living, we weren't bored because we didn't have anything to do for billions of years. So death should be equally insignificant to us. We always yammer about what comes after life, not what came before it.

 

It drives me crazy thinking about how our consciousness is indeed the product of our brains, and that every human has consciousness produced by their brains, and that, theoretically, there will be an infinite amount of humans (really just theoretically).

 

I've always - incorrectly, and I am aware of this incorrectness, but I cannot manage to throw away this thought pattern - thought about how it is that we experience the very life we are experiencing, and not that of our neighbour, of our friend, of the starving African kid - what made that we were supposed to live the life we're living? What makes that I am the conscious entity in Belgium typing this message as we are speaking, and that I can be spared from the African starvation misery? Whereas another entity was meant to undergo that misery?

 

We are oriented in time and space, and what makes that the very person I am lives in the very time and space I am living in right now? I could've "had" the consciousness of a total different person, yet I am experiencing the life of this Belgian medical student. Why? What makes that the conscious entity that is experiencing this life was awarded this most advanced life form, instead of that of a dog, or a mouse? Would it simply not be compatible with those life forms?

 

 

I'm not sure where you going with this post above it sounds like some reincarnation theory. There no stockpiling of consciousness being assigned to living things being bored.

 

And when death the consciousness dies the consciousness does not get assigned to other living thing.

[Function]

 

I'm not sure where you going with this post above it sounds like some reincarnation theory. There no stockpiling of consciousness being assigned to living things being bored.

 

And when death the consciousness dies the consciousness does not get assigned to other living thing.

 

I must emphasize the necessity of reading my whole post, if you please; I clearly deny any reincarnation theory but describe certain cognitive dissonance coping with the finality of our consciousness and its inherence to our brain.

[nec209]

 

 

edit:In recent years, trehalose has also proved useful in the cryopreservation of sperm and stem cells and in the development of a highly reliable organ preservation solution.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2708026/

 

 

The problem with cryopreservation or cryogenics is the freezing. When they try to freeze the body their is ice crystals this damage the cells, organs and brain so on.

 

They are trying to do research and development into chemicals that do not cause ice crystals!! But have not found any chemicals yet.

 

May be in 10 to 15 years from now they may find chemicals that may not cause ice crystals when freezing.

[seriously disabled]

So if in the very far future a universe completely identical to our own emerges then does it mean that all of us will live again?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future

[DrP]

26 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

So if in the very far future a universe completely identical to our own emerges then does it mean that all of us will live again?

Sounds nice, but I really don't think we will live again. Even if similar we wouldn't be the same conscious entities. 

You get one life. imo you should try to live it to the full. Not be jealous of what you don't or can't have, try to be nice and helpful and 'good'. Try to be content and be yourself - you can't be anybody else. Forgive yourself and others often. Count your blessings and realise you are incredibly lucky to be alive at all as the odds are so far against it.   Love, love. love.... Good luck with it sir. I hope you enjoy what you have, whatever it may be.

 

[hikinmike]

I believe death will mean the absolute dissolution of the personality.  Am not aware of evidence to the contrary.  Yet I open myself up to the challenge that "I believe..."  At 69 years of age I find it more rewarding to attempt experiencing and savoring each moment of life's experience.  What will be, upon death, will unfold then. 

 

[Endercreeper01]

On 6/18/2017 at 5:57 PM, Function said:

It's truly fascinating thinking about it. Before we experienced the life we are living, we weren't bored because we didn't have aIt drives me crazy thinking about how our consciousness is indeed the product of our brains, and that every human has consciousness produced by their brains, and that, theoretically, there will be an infinite amount of humans (really just theoretically).

We are oriented in time and space, and what makes that the very person I am lives in the very time and space I am living in right now? I could've "had" the consciousness of a total different person, yet I am experiencing the life of this Belgian medical student. Why? What makes that the conscious entity that is experiencing this life was awarded this most advanced life form, instead of that of a dog, or a mouse? Would it simply not be compatible with those life forms?

It is so incredibly fascinating to think about this: when we die, for us, it stops. And we will not be aware of it having stopped, we will be aware of totally nothing. It is truly fascinating indeed to speculate on how that would feel to us - because no one alive could ever tell.

I'm not believing in any afterlife. I am aware of the finity of our existance but I cannot help but think that we will get to experience another life next.

This incorrect thought pattern of mine would be like there's a finite amount of consciousnesses, and when someone dies, the consciousness stock gets refilled and a newborn baby gets consciousness from that stock and you get to live another life without having any clue you've already lived one.

It's crazy to think that way, isn't it? Which must be why it's most probably false. The consciousness in my brain is inherent to my brain and everyone's consciousness is inherent to theirs. Which means that every consciousness is unique and there is an infinite amount of consciousnesses.

Yet, something inside of me refuses to believe that I (for what it's worth here, "I" is meaningless), my consciousness, will not be assigned to another brain when I die, forgetting about the live I'm living now.

Is it actually somewhat clear what I mean? Forgive me but we can only speculate and think of this from a rather philosophical point of view as we are speaking. Biology and medicine are not ready for answering the questions I gave. It is up until this day not possible to answer my questions from a pure scientifical point of view, imo.

Per conclusion, what makes it that our brain is able and allowed to experience, think of, and above all, question its inherent consciousness? I am a strong believer that indeed, everything we are is the product of our brain. But why would it allow itself to create a product which could endanger its own existance and credibility, why would it allof such a product leading to doubt itself? Why would it even allow us to consider its highest form of development? Why was its cortex ever developed so far that it could fall victim to its own thoughts?

You can't assume that consciousnesses is something without its own separate existence.

[iNow]

21 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

You can't assume that consciousnesses is something without its own separate existence.

Of course we can

[Endercreeper01]

22 hours ago, iNow said:

Of course we can

Not when there is no physical mechanism which could lead to it's existence.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Endercreeper01

[iNow]

I didn’t comment on whether the assumption would be accurate or not, only that it could, in fact, be assumed. 

1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Not when there is no physical mechanism which could lead to it's existence.

So, your position is that consciousness cannot be explained in naturalistic terms using physics, chemistry, and biology. Am I reading you correctly?

[Endercreeper01]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

I didn’t comment on whether the assumption would be accurate or not, only that it could, in fact, be assumed. 

So, your position is that consciousness cannot be explained in naturalistic terms using physics, chemistry, and biology. Am I reading you correctly?

Yes, my position is that because there is no physical mechanism by which a machine such as our brains can become conscious, then consciousness cannot be explained in naturalistic terms using physics, chemistry, and biology.

[Strange]

6 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Yes, my position is that because there is no physical mechanism by which a machine such as our brains can become conscious, then consciousness cannot be explained in naturalistic terms using physics, chemistry, and biology.

How do you know there is no such mechanism?

[StringJunky]

8 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Yes, my position is that because there is no physical mechanism by which a machine such as our brains can become conscious, then consciousness cannot be has not yet been explained in naturalistic terms using physics, chemistry, and biology.

 

[iNow]

17 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Yes

I suspect we're too far apart to have a productive discussion then

[Endercreeper01]

9 hours ago, StringJunky said:

 

 

12 hours ago, Strange said:

How do you know there is no such mechanism?

Because consciousness cannot arise from something as abstract as math, which is all the universe should fundamentally be composed of, nothing more than mathematical systems.

[Strange]

39 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Because consciousness cannot arise from something as abstract as math, 

How do you know that?

Quote

which is all the universe should fundamentally be composed of, nothing more than mathematical systems.

How do you know that?

[Endercreeper01]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

How do you know that?

How do you know that?

Because it has no reason to arise. How can something as abstract as mathematics lead to the existence of a sentience that feels and experiences?

[iNow]

Logical fallacies shouldn’t be so common from a person claiming logic as the basis of their entire position. 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

Quote

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

The fallacy is an argument from ignorance

 

[Endercreeper01]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Logical fallacies shouldn’t be so common from a person claiming logic as the basis of their entire position. 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

 

It's not a logical fallacy to say that something can't happen in a particular way.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Endercreeper01

[Prometheus]

4 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

It's not a logical fallacy to say that something can't happen in a particular way.

But it is a logical fallacy to say something can't happen because you can't believe it does happen. You have been asked many times on many threads why a mathematical universe can't give rise to consciousness. Your answer has always been 'Because it is composed of mathematical systems', or ''Because it has no reason to arise'.  

These do not answer the question., they just restate your assertion with slightly different words.

So, why can't a mathematical universe give rise to consciousness?