Why is life after death really not possible?

[StringJunky]

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?

 

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.

 

 

You are not yet ready to countenance the finite nature of your life and, so, create other possibilities. It is not an easy task to embrace the former but the realities you will surely experience in the future will make it more desirable.

[Function]

You are not yet ready to countenance the finite nature of your life and, so, create other possibilities. It is not an easy task to embrace the former but the realities you will surely experience in the future will make it more desirable.

 

Oh believe me, I have no problems at all with death. I'm actually quite curious about it. But there truly is no one who can genuinely share their experiences about being dead. No one. It's something everyone has to discover unconsciously for themselves.

 

We've been conscious all our life and we have no notion of having been unconscious before it, though that was the case. Truth be told, I'm eager to 'remember' (so much wrong with this word in this context) what it's like to be fully unconscious and to 'live' (lol) without consciousness.

 

For the easily deterred people: don't worry. I'm not that eager to find out.

[Bender]

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.

Looks like you are experiencing textbook cognitive dissonance.

[Function]

Looks like you are experiencing textbook cognitive dissonance.

 

Aren't we all - to a certain degree - victims of the honourable Festinger

[Bender]

 

Aren't we all - to a certain degree - victims of the honourable Festinger

Interestingly, you seem to be aware of it and don't attempt to rationalise it away.

[Function]

Interestingly, you seem to be aware of it and don't attempt to rationalise it away.

 

Don't I? I believe posts #25 and #27 were serious attempts to do so. Festinger describes the cognitive dissonance as to be tempted by changing your mind and thoughts on the situation, which was up until that moment discongruent with your mind and thoughts.

 

I've had serious attempts last night to get rid of the cognitive dissonance between what I know (that there is no afterlife and that our consciousness is finite in time and space) and what I try to figure out. However, there is no satisfying alternative capable of ridding the dissonance. Yet.

[zapatos]

We've been conscious all our life and we have no notion of having been unconscious before it, though that was the case.

Was it? You make it sound as if we existed before we were alive. Is that what you are intending to say?

[Function]

Was it? You make it sound as if we existed before we were alive. Is that what you are intending to say?

 

"Though that was the case" was about not being conscious. Naturally, we weren't conscious before we were born and we won't after our death. Other persons will start to exist and other lives will come to an end. Lives other than ours.

 

I am fully convinced that the consciousness that forms our life is fully inherent to our brain and its objectively measurable neurobiological structures and functions, including its finity. Our consciousness will cease to exist together with our brain. But it is so incomprehensible what had been before our lives, and what will come after our lives. What made that the consciousness that is directing me typing this text was lucky enough to live in the time and space it currently lives in, and not in a developing country, and not in a country at war, and not in North Korea, ... That would be because our consciousness is the consequence of our brain. And was not assigned to it predeterminedly.

 

However, I still find it remarkable and a bit unfair and over-the-top that evolution found it necessary for our brains to allow themselves to develop so far that they would allow consciousness to be created inherently, allowing us to doubt our very own existence, our very own consciousness, and our very own brain.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Function

[Prometheus]

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.

 

.

.

.

 

Is it actually somewhat clear what I mean?

 

You're making sense, to me at least. I'm still often so amazed i exist at all it makes my heart flutter.

 

Maybe your dissonance results from you trying to imagine what that nothingness after death is like? By definition oblivion is not something we can experience, so any thoughts of it will not be it. But the brain insists on trying.

 

I also share your curiosity about the experience of dying: it may be the last thing i ever experience, and i would like to see the face of death, however fleetingly, before i fade.

[Function]

 

You're making sense, to me at least. I'm still often so amazed i exist at all it makes my heart flutter.

 

Maybe your dissonance results from you trying to imagine what that nothingness after death is like? By definition oblivion is not something we can experience, so any thoughts of it will not be it. But the brain insists on trying.

 

I also share your curiosity about the experience of dying: it may be the last thing i ever experience, and i would like to see the face of death, however fleetingly, before i fade.

 

Exactly! Thank you.

 

Indeed, evolution's latest invention was a poisoned chalice and has dug its own grave.

[Itoero]

I also share your curiosity about the experience of dying: it may be the last thing i ever experience, and i would like to see the face of death, however fleetingly, before i fade.

I've red about a 14y old girl that was dying of cancer and frozen with the intention to wake her when there is a cure. If they are able to wake her then she saw the face of death.

I can imagine many people are frozen like that.

[Function]

I've red about a 14y old girl that was dying of cancer and frozen with the intention to wake her when there is a cure. If they are able to wake her then she saw the face of death.

I can imagine many people are frozen like that.

 

I'd do whatever it'd take to see and interview her if that would be even possible.

[dimreepr]

 

Exactly! Thank you.

 

Indeed, evolution's latest invention was a poisoned chalice and has dug its own grave.

 

I tend to agree, my only caveat is we've yet to lie in it; it strikes me that hope is central to your post's in this thread.

[Bender]

 

Don't I? I believe posts #25 and #27 were serious attempts to do so. Festinger describes the cognitive dissonance as to be tempted by changing your mind and thoughts on the situation, which was up until that moment discongruent with your mind and thoughts.

 

I've had serious attempts last night to get rid of the cognitive dissonance between what I know (that there is no afterlife and that our consciousness is finite in time and space) and what I try to figure out. However, there is no satisfying alternative capable of ridding the dissonance. Yet.

As far as I understand it, the rationalisation usually works the other way, away from knowledge. I thought it was interesting, and admirable, that you consciously try to steer it towards what you know.

 

I've red about a 14y old girl that was dying of cancer and frozen with the intention to wake her when there is a cure. If they are able to wake her then she saw the face of death.

I can imagine many people are frozen like that.

But there would be nothing to remember. No brain activity means no dreams and no memories. She might dream during the process of freezing or defrosting, but by definition she wouldn't be dead at those times. It is really no different from other supposed near-dead experiences.

[Joel_Edgerton]

Well I do believe that anything is possible. Science from today always falsifies the science from the past. Therefore, the only thing I can say is that using the technology of today to investigate, it is simply impossible to know. You might say that there isn't because we don't have the knowledge and technology to figure that out.

[Bender]

Well I do believe that anything is possible. Science from today always falsifies the science from the past. Therefore, the only thing I can say is that using the technology of today to investigate, it is simply impossible to know. You might say that there isn't because we don't have the knowledge and technology to figure that out.

Strictly speaking, we indeed cannot prove it doesn't exist, nor will we ever be able to prove that. However, if it does, at what point in our evolution did our ancestors start getting an afterlife? Which other creatures or plants have an afterlife?

Any hypothesis that includes an afterlife should have a clear answer to these inherently fuzzy questions.

[Function]

I'm genuinely wondering at what point in evolution (self)consciousness and other higher forms of consciousness started to exist. What may have driven evolution to make brains evolve in something capable of doubting itself? The things we think and write down are basically actually just the results of some neural interactions, so perhaps the product that we call selfconsciousness and higher consciousness is just a mistake of evolution, and our brain was never meant to be able to do so.

[Bender]

A nice analogy is the difference between a simple processor like Arduino and a PC. To operate, the PC needs a higher level system to coordinate different processes and make high level decisions.

An insect's programming is simple enough that it needs little more that an Arduino running a main program and some subtasks. Large mammals need more complex behaviour to e.g. not blindly run towards the source when they smell food (insects usually don't take potential risks into account). To coordinate their actions, they need an additional programming level.

[Prometheus]

We are a highly social species and to have an idea about others, we need an idea of self. Perhaps it is little more than that.

[Strange]

 

I'd do whatever it'd take to see and interview her if that would be even possible.

 

 

That's easy: have yourself frozen with the condition that you are woken after she is.

[Function]

 

 

That's easy: have yourself frozen with the condition that you are woken after she is.

 

On second thought. Perhaps not whatever it'd take.

[Strange]

Well I do believe that anything is possible. Science from today always falsifies the science from the past.

 

 

I don't think that is true. Some theories are falsified, but very few. Phlogiston is one of the few examples I can think of. Oh, and the steady state universe (that's quite a big one, I guess). And, ... ummm...

[Delta1212]

 

Yeah, I think swansont has made it very clear we are not discussing any sort of consciousness other than that which potentially emerges from physical structure. Destroy the structure - you've destroyed the consciousness. And in that context if you argue for the existent of duplicate structures, I don't think there's any way to claim that the two (separate) structures house the same consciousness. You'd be talking about two consciousnesses that behaved in very similar ways, but they'd still be distinct.

Of course, by the same token, I'm not entirely convinced that there is a "same consciousness" that exists throughout a person's life or possibly even, at the extreme end, from one moment to the next.

 

I have a sense of continuity with my "previous selves" but that seems like it's more down to memory than because it's actually true. A perfect duplicate of me would feel that same sense of continuity and believe himself to be me, unless given reason to think otherwise, for just the same reason.

 

If consciousness is an emergent process then what's to say it isn't somewhat like, say, a fire. The tongue of flame rising from a candle is not "the same" fire from one moment to the next. It's a continual process of new atoms oxidizing to release heat and light. And that heat is what drives the process for new atoms so it maintains a semblance of consistency that way. But there is no thing there to have a tangible continued existence. You can split the flame by dividing up the fuel source, or "transfer" it to another fuel source by holding something flammable near it. Then you can merge it all back together again in a joint heap up fuel if you want.

 

Unless you do want to talk about some kind of real, physical soul, I don't see how consciousness is much different in this respect. If consciousness arises from the brain, then it is the pattern, and more specifically the way the pattern continuously changes, that gives rise to consciousness. And that pattern is constantly changing. The physical material that makes up the substrate that the pattern is embedded in and that fuels the changes to the pattern is constantly changing.

 

If someone duplicated your brain down to the sub-atomic level, there'd be no way to distinguish between the two. True, any consciousness would be separate from your own, but then, you're separate from who you were a few minutes previous before the copy was made, too. What's to say that the you with "the same" brain is the real inheritor of the older consciousness while the "copy" is a new entity? What if you are, in fact, both new entities kicked off from the process that gave rise to the older one the same way that the heat from a flame continually gives birth to a newer version of itself?

 

What if we took your brain and the duplicate's brain and bisected each at the corpus collosum and then reattached them to the opposite hemisphere of the other brain? You have, again, two identical brains, but now one half of each is original and one half duplicate. Which does "original you" continue to reside in? Either? Neither? Both?

 

How does brain damage affect the continuity of a consciousness? If it does, what constitutes "brain damage" versus a more "natural" change in the brain? Do we have one consciousness as a child that dies at puberty and is replaced by a different one? Does a concussion "kill" us and replace us with someone else?

 

 

The only way I can, at present, reconcile a coherent answer to all of these questions is if consciousness arises fresh and new each moment of subjective experience and there is no continuity except that which is provided by the pattern itself. And, if that is the case, then it would seem to me that any replication of that pattern would have equal standing as a continuation of that earlier pattern.

 

So while a coincidental copy of you in some far-flung region of the universe would obviously not be the older version of "you" even if it has the same memories, I would contend that this doesn't much matter because you already aren't the older you, anyway, and neither will the future you that is going to exist on Earth be the current you, either.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Delta1212

[Itoero]

But there would be nothing to remember. No brain activity means no dreams and no memories. She might dream during the process of freezing or defrosting, but by definition she wouldn't be dead at those times. It is really no different from other supposed near-dead experiences.

Do you think she will have the memory from before the freezing?

[Bender]

Do you think she will have the memory from before the freezing?

That depends on how she was frozen and how she is stored and revived.

If she froze to slowly, the ice crystals will have destroyed her neurons and it will be either impossible to revive her or she would suffer a degree of brain damage (as well as damage to all her other organs). Even if she is frozen quickly enough, her cells would slowly dehydrate.

 

In short: I don't personally think that anyone who is currently frozen will ever be revived, so the question about their memory is not really relevant.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Bender