On the subject of death

[D13]

Link to original post: [drupal=3367]On the subject of death[/drupal]



Well, I was driving to school this morning thinking about the obnoxious boil on my leg when it brought me to the subject of mortality. Isn't driving great? I can just coast to school because hardly anyone is on the road so early in the morning--at least until you get to town.

Personally, I favor the idea of reincarnation. When the "soul" leaves the body after death, everything begins anew. All memories and experiences are left with the dying flesh, and the "soul" thougthlessly moves on to no man's land. You could call this the "soul bank". At some point in the future, the "soul" leaves the bank to be the life in a newborn creature. After life there is death, and before life there is death.

In the past, my "soul" could have been anywhere. It could have been within Abe Lincoln--or perhaps a turtle or something.

What thoughts do you have about death (or life)?

 

[§witch]

You die and your body rots. Make the most out of it now. I'm sure as hell not going to do **** I don't like for the chance of reward later.

 

[Firus]

You die and your body rots. Make the most out of it now. I'm sure as hell not going to do **** I don't like for the chance of reward later.

Indeed. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

The afterlife (or lack thereof) is one of the more interesting topics to contemplate, even though I'm decidedly Epicurean. Since we really don't have any proof of what happens after we die, it's left up to our thoughts and imaginations to decide what we think will happen.

Good blog.

 

[ndayday]

I don't worry about it too much. I'm sure it's scary when you get near the end, but then I'm sure it could be a sense of relief when you actually die, assuming you don't die in a way you yourself perceive as scary.

That said, I don't think there's really much of anything after you die. Which is weird and hard to think about for me. I love the people I'm close to, even if they don't know it. And that's the frustrating part for me, the fact that if there isn't anything, you obviously don't think about those kind of things once dead. If anything, that kind of thing makes me want to be kinder to people.

Kind of went off the subject but not really there.

 

[Mota]

If there's an afterlife, I'll worry abut it then.

Once dead, I'm hoping that that's it. Blankness similar to before you were born.

 

[Dre89]

Well there has been well over 8 million people who have come back to life after being deemed clinically dead, and the common account is an experience of going through a dark tunnel, so I'm going to go with something similar to that.

 

[GwJ]

You also shouldn't believe in reincarnation because it sounds nice. If the world worked like, no one would have any worries.

 

[Dre89]

You also shouldn't believe in reincarnation because it sounds nice. If the world worked like, no one would have any worries.

This is essentially where the idea of "Christian Buddhism" comes from, because westerners who are uneducated in religion and philosophy turn to Buddhism simply because it is more appealing, rather than actually having a strong reason for believing it is the truth.

 

[Aposl]

You die and your body rots. Make the most out of it now. I'm sure as hell not going to do **** I don't like for the chance of reward later.

This quote makes me laugh as well as gives me chills, you clearly are talking about a religion of works to get a reward (possibly Heaven) but say you are sure as HELL you wont do what you don't like to possibly get it. I only find it amusing because the phrase "sure as hell" means the existence of Hell is definite, and you use this existence to make your point that you wont do what is necessary(in context) to avoid going there.


I believe in Heaven, but not in a religion of works, but faith. Once you are saved you will go to heaven. You can tell a person is saved by their actions, but that isn't what saves them. Its arminianism versus predestination.

 

[REL38]

Phrases like "sure as hell" or "God **** it" are just that, phrases

They in no way suggest someone believes in either of the two as they're just a phrase commonly used to express one's self


It irks me when someone over analyzes something
:/

 

[mountain_tiger]

Phrases like "sure as hell" or "God **** it" are just that, phrases

They in no way suggest someone believes in either of the two as they're just a phrase commonly used to express one's self


It irks me when someone over analyzes something
:/

I don't think he (or she) was being full on serious...

I'm one of those 'won't believe things without proof' people, so for the moment I'm just focusing on having fun in life...

 

[Jim Morrison]

Haha, I'm too young, I can't die yet.

 

[§witch]

Haha, I'm too young, I can't die yet.

hahahahahahahaha

 

[Melomaniacal]

How does reincarnation explain population increase? Can souls also be created in addition to... reincarnated?

 

[Apollo$]

Religious debate go?

 

[rvkevin]

I share Mark Twain's sentiments: "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."

There's no evidence of an afterlife, so there's no reason to believe that there is.

 

[victra♥]

thats a really good quote rvkevin. I never thought of it that way

 

[†Slader7†]

Haha, I'm too young, I can't die yet.

I like your sense of immortality.
Ever watched the show 1000 ways to die?

Yeah, we're not so hard to kill.


btw, awesome quote rvkevin

 

[X1-12]

its interesting how everyone assumes that time applies to the soul after death.. perhaps people can be reincarnated at any time in history, before OR after they died

 

[SuperBowser]

Despite medical advancements, 100% of people still die so we may as well get used to it . I don't think I fear death. I just view it as a chance to rest in piece, as weird as that sounds.

However, the idea of losing people close to me is totally different. It thankfully hasn't happenned to me so far, but the concept of someone I love just ceasing to exist one day would be much more difficult for me to accept.

 

[tirkaro]

Every last emotion we possess is attached to our brains. Once we die, every last memory, emotion, trait, and feeling we possess will be completely gone. That's why I can never believe in an afterlife. If there was one, it would be kinda hard to enjoy it, since all you'd really have left is your consciousness/self awareness.

Me, I too mostly believe in the Reincarnation cycle, since it's really the only thing that makes sense to my feeble human mind. I simply cannot grasp the fact that the human consciousness goes away completely after death. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, so I simply cannot be convinced that my self-awareness goes away completely. Consciousness is simply just one of those things right in front of us, but we have no real grasp on what it is. Likewise, I believe after my body is done for, my self-awareness stops piloting this body, and I'll end up as, I dunno, anything. I could be a little girl in ancient Egypt, or a Radioactive samurai penguin on the planet Frolpmaporlf, or just a feeble worm in the ground. It just makes the most sense. You'll never get bored because your memory is constantly rebooting. You'll never become useless because there's always going to be more bodies that need piloting. Heck, even if this whole Big Crunch thing is true and this whole universe is dead and gone, a new Universe will be sure to take it's place, and life will start all over again.

But that's just me being hopeful. Whatever happens, it's probably beyond the grasp of our current understanding, and maybe beyond what our human minds are capable of knowing. But even then, whatever happens, I'm 100% likely to not give a crap about it now, so I'll just let it be.

 

[Melomaniacal]

I still want to know about reincarnation's response to population increase.
Not as a challenge, I'm genuinely ignorant and want to know.

 

[GwJ]

Every last emotion we possess is attached to our brains. Once we die, every last memory, emotion, trait, and feeling we possess will be completely gone. That's why I can never believe in an afterlife. If there was one, it would be kinda hard to enjoy it, since all you'd really have left is your consciousness/self awareness.

Me, I too mostly believe in the Reincarnation cycle, since it's really the only thing that makes sense to my feeble human mind. I simply cannot grasp the fact that the human consciousness goes away completely after death. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, so I simply cannot be convinced that my self-awareness goes away completely. Consciousness is simply just one of those things right in front of us, but we have no real grasp on what it is. Likewise, I believe after my body is done for, my self-awareness stops piloting this body, and I'll end up as, I dunno, anything. I could be a little girl in ancient Egypt, or a Radioactive samurai penguin on the planet Frolpmaporlf, or just a feeble worm in the ground. It just makes the most sense. You'll never get bored because your memory is constantly rebooting. You'll never become useless because there's always going to be more bodies that need piloting. Heck, even if this whole Big Crunch thing is true and this whole universe is dead and gone, a new Universe will be sure to take it's place, and life will start all over again.

But that's just me being hopeful. Whatever happens, it's probably beyond the grasp of our current understanding, and maybe beyond what our human minds are capable of knowing. But even then, whatever happens, I'm 100% likely to not give a crap about it now, so I'll just let it be.

Matter wouldn't be created. If a planet it destroyed by a cataclysmic meteor, it's never going to form again, but matter was never destroyed either. It was scattered. Try this analogy:

You're like a puzzle. When you die, that puzzle gets separated and the pieces get scattered, rearranged, and swapped with other random pieces so that it will never form the same thing again.

It's hard to explain, but dying definitely follows the law of conservation of mass.

 

[§witch]

Consciousness isn't matter.

 

[SharkAttack]

I'd rather go to Heaven than Complete Blankness;
I'd rather go to Complete Blankness than go to Hell.

I sure hope there is an afterlife where we can meet old friends and family members in a comfortable, painless place. This is honestly the number one thing I want more than anything. Whatever happens after humans die is going to occur no matter what. I have faith there is one based upon strange phenomenoms that have occured to people after a close one dies.

 

[CRASHiC]

How does reincarnation explain population increase? Can souls also be created in addition to... reincarnated?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km5YGCRb0WM

At any rate, because we can't know if there is an afterlife, death should only be thought of within relation to life itself, not what lies afterwords but what it gives to those of us who are alive. I suffered from Death Anxiety for years becasue of the death of my mother. A few months ago, at the true bottom, I found the answer I had been searching for, as to what good death gives us.

"I want to spend all of eternity with you"
"I want to spend the rest of my life with you"
You'll notice the 2nd one has more of an impact. Why? Becasue we value what is limited, but its more than that. Its also saying that their willing to sacrifice something of value for you. "I only have so much time, but i know I want to spend every moment I can with you." Death adds just as much as it takes from life.

Consciousness isn't matter.

Man, you're one of my least favorite commenters on Userblogs. Yuo say quick one liners that make it sound like you know something, when you just showed me you don't. Consciousness could very well be matter. The idea of consciousness is the most perplexing subject in neuroscience today, so much so that it flows comfortably into the cup of philosophy. Thoughts are connected to the idea of consciousness—considered to be a part of consciousness. However there have been volumes written just on what consciousness is let alone how it arises in the brain. If we don't really know what it actually means to be conscious we can't isolate (if indeed it can be isolated) what structures that give rise to it.
The neocortex, the outermost layer or 'rind' of the brain, is thought to play a large role in consciousness. If you image a person using fMRI or MEG (magnetoencephalography) there will be a constant 'background noise' running through the cerebral cortex which is thought to be related to the sub-conscious. When enough neurones in an area fire in unison or in a pattern though excitatory feedback loops, temporal and spacial summation, etc. a thought is believed to materialise. It was shown that neurones fire a few milisecons before a decision enters the conscious mind, showing that the brain has made the decision before the mind and challenging preconceived notions of free will. Neurones produces action potentials which are tiny pulses of current through the cell. These are produced not by electrons but by positive ions which flood into the cell when channels in the membrane open. The movement of Na⁺ into the cell, for example, causes the cell to become positively charged with respect to the outside and this causes channels further down the line the open, thus causing more sodium influx (a positive feedback loop). When this gets to the end of the neurone's axon the current either passes directly though electrical synapses into other neurones or causes the releases of neurotransmitter in the chemical synapse. These chemicals then bind to channels or other proteins on the neighbouring neurone which causes another action potential. Often these action potentials are too small to cause excitation (or inhibition!) of other neurones and thus summation must occur where a number of 'pulses' reach a neurone at the same time or sufficiently close to each other. When there is a big enough electrical stimulus in a certain area it produces an action or thought. An interesting example of this is a theory on how dreams may be produced (at least in part): Pontine neurones (those in the pons) via the thalamus activate various areas of the cortex by semi-random discharges, which elicit memories or emotions. These are then thought to be desperately and often tenuously synthesised into a narrative by the cortex. This I imagine occurs as memories activate associated circuits elsewhere in the cortex. Evidence for this theory is mixed and there are many others out there.

 

[Dastrn]

You are a plagiariser.

 

[CRASHiC]

What you talkin about willis?

 

[§witch]

Man, you're one of my least favorite commenters on Userblogs. Yuo say quick one liners that make it sound like you know something, when you just showed me you don't. Consciousness could very well be matter. The idea of consciousness is the most perplexing subject in neuroscience today, so much so that it flows comfortably into the cup of philosophy. Thoughts are connected to the idea of consciousness—considered to be a part of consciousness. However there have been volumes written just on what consciousness is let alone how it arises in the brain. If we don't really know what it actually means to be conscious we can't isolate (if indeed it can be isolated) what structures that give rise to it.
The neocortex, the outermost layer or 'rind' of the brain, is thought to play a large role in consciousness. If you image a person using fMRI or MEG (magnetoencephalography) there will be a constant 'background noise' running through the cerebral cortex which is thought to be related to the sub-conscious. When enough neurones in an area fire in unison or in a pattern though excitatory feedback loops, temporal and spacial summation, etc. a thought is believed to materialise. It was shown that neurones fire a few milisecons before a decision enters the conscious mind, showing that the brain has made the decision before the mind and challenging preconceived notions of free will. Neurones produces action potentials which are tiny pulses of current through the cell. These are produced not by electrons but by positive ions which flood into the cell when channels in the membrane open. The movement of Na⁺ into the cell, for example, causes the cell to become positively charged with respect to the outside and this causes channels further down the line the open, thus causing more sodium influx (a positive feedback loop). When this gets to the end of the neurone's axon the current either passes directly though electrical synapses into other neurones or causes the releases of neurotransmitter in the chemical synapse. These chemicals then bind to channels or other proteins on the neighbouring neurone which causes another action potential. Often these action potentials are too small to cause excitation (or inhibition!) of other neurones and thus summation must occur where a number of 'pulses' reach a neurone at the same time or sufficiently close to each other. When there is a big enough electrical stimulus in a certain area it produces an action or thought. An interesting example of this is a theory on how dreams may be produced (at least in part): Pontine neurones (those in the pons) via the thalamus activate various areas of the cortex by semi-random discharges, which elicit memories or emotions. These are then thought to be desperately and often tenuously synthesised into a narrative by the cortex. This I imagine occurs as memories activate associated circuits elsewhere in the cortex. Evidence for this theory is mixed and there are many others out there.

This is all good and well, but your brain is still intact when you die, albeit not functioning, provided you didn't die of some sort of brain trauma. Your consciousness cannot be matter, it doesn't matter how many Wikipedia articles you read on the subject. It cannot be matter because parts of your brain don't go dancing off into the ether after you die.

I'm not exactly fond of you either. You have an overinflated sense of self-worth that you perpetuate by making unnecessarily long posts about a topic that neuroscientists have yet to fully comprehend. And you expect me to take you at face value on that? Sorry, that's not about to happen.

 

[CRASHiC]

This is all good and well, but your brain is still intact when you die, albeit not functioning, provided you didn't die of some sort of brain trauma. Your consciousness cannot be matter, it doesn't matter how many Wikipedia articles you read on the subject. It cannot be matter because parts of your brain don't go dancing off into the ether after you die.

When you die there are 7 to 8 minutes of brain activity, provided the brain hasn't been squashed. Whose to say that consciousness couldn't exist within these 7 to 8 minutes? We have heard of stories from people coming back from the dead having some sort of experience. Knowing the truth to these stories is impossible, however, there's no reason to believe that consciousness couldn't still breath within those minutes.

You have an overinflated sense of self-worth that you perpetuate by making unnecessarily long posts about a topic that neuroscientists have yet to fully comprehend. And you expect me to take you at face value on that? Sorry, that's not about to happen.

I'm not asking you to take that on face value, also note those aren't my theories, I'm no brain surgeon here. I'm simply providing you with evidence that shows that consciousness could indeed be within the physical realm.

I'm sorry, but if you think that's an "overinfated sense of self worth" then I'd hate to see what you think of Goldshadow's post. His response would be what I posted times 10 WITH citation.
True pretentious behavior doesn't feel the need to validate itself with logical reasoning, but inserts their self importance by claiming others wrong with only a few lines of no content or value.

 

[Firus]

Guys, this is a good blog. Do we HAVE to turn it into an argument?

 

[victra♥]

lol are you being sarcastic firus? xD

 

[†Slader7†]

I still want to know about reincarnation's response to population increase.
Not as a challenge, I'm genuinely ignorant and want to know.

Well, those who believe in reincarnation believe every soul is recycled and born again into a different form of life.
Sure the human population has expanded but that doesn't mean other forms of life have expanded as well.
As the human population grows, other species have to die (Passenger Pigeons, Polar Bears just to name a few) or else Earth's ecosystem will be pushed to the max (if it isn't already).
And thus the amount of "souls" remains constant.

Just random thoughts for your amusement.

 

[REL38]

I share Mark Twain's sentiments: "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."

There's no evidence of an afterlife, so there's no reason to believe that there is.

Non existence =/= death

Just sayin'

 

[Dre89]

There's no evidence of an afterlife, so there's no reason to believe that there is.

Well there has been well over 8 million people who have come back to life after being deemed clinically dead, and the common account is an experience of going through a dark tunnel, so I'm going to go with something similar to that.

And the evidence that there is no afterlife is...wait what is it?

 

[rvkevin]

Well there has been well over 8 million people who have come back to life after being deemed clinically dead, and the common account is an experience of going through a dark tunnel, so I'm going to go with something similar to that.

Well the first part is a little misleading. Being clinically dead only requires the cessation of blood circulation and breathing (two functions that can be sustained by CPR). The common definition of death has changed from time to time, it once meant the cessation of the heart, but now it is most commonly the irreversible cessation of brain activity. Being clinically dead is not the same as being dead, so technically, they did not come back to life since they were not dead.

The tunnel vision is best explained as a buildup of carbon dioxide (low oxygen levels) in the brain (http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2010/04/co2-death-experiences/).

“We found that in those patients who experienced the phenomenon, blood carbon dioxide levels were significantly higher than in those who did not."

And the evidence that there is no afterlife is...wait what is it?

Saying there is no evidence for something is not the same as saying there's evidence against it. Conflating the two would be to try and shift the burden of proof. Until you actually cite something instead of asserting it, I stand by my claim that there is no evidence that points towards an afterlife.

And the evidence that there is an afterlife is...wait what is it?

 

[Dre89]

There's no evidence of an afterlife, so there's no reason to believe that there is.

If there is no evidence either way, then there is no justification in a belief either way.

The bold part implies that no evidence of an afterlife (assuming there isn't any) is sufficient justification that there isn't one. In this sense, you're shifting the burden of proof to the other side, saying that if they can't prove the existence of the afterlife, there isn't one.

Also, I think that assuming that there is no afterlife has certain implications the skeptic needs to account for. Belief in the afterlife is like belief in God (although God perhaps has more metaphysical justification), they both appear to be intrinsic beliefs, as everyone seems to initially have them. Throughout history different cultures have pointed to these ideas of God/s and the afterlife, suggesting that we are naturally inclined to have these beliefs.

Now that doesn't prove that God or the afterlife exists, but going against those beliefs requires you to assume that all of humanity is under a massive dellusion. Being skeptical of beliefs which we are naturally inclined and designed to have requires you assume that we can't trust natural inclination.

So basically, you would have to go through and justify belief in everything you are naturally inclined to do, because as a skeptic, natural inclination is no longer justification for its belief. A good example is the acceptance of other people's testimony, for testimony is something we just naturally accept.

Basically, what the skeptic has to assume is in fact pretty radical- that humanity is under a massive dellusion and that our natural inclinations account for nothing, despite the fact we act upon those inclinations in everyday life.

 

[rvkevin]

If there is no evidence either way, then there is no justification in a belief either way.
The bold part implies that no evidence of an afterlife (assuming there isn't any) is sufficient justification that there isn't one. In this sense, you're shifting the burden of proof to the other side, saying that if they can't prove the existence of the afterlife, there isn't one.

You should not believe things until they have been shown to be true. If there is no evidence either way, then you are not justified to believe it. I only mentioned whether the belief in an afterlife is justified (the reasons for belief), so no, the bold does not imply that there isn't one.

Belief in the afterlife is like belief in God (although God perhaps has more metaphysical justification), they both appear to be intrinsic beliefs, as everyone seems to initially have them.

Something being naturally inclined does not mean that it is accurate. These beliefs may have evolutionary benefit as a placebo.

Throughout history different cultures have pointed to these ideas of God/s and the afterlife, suggesting that we are naturally inclined to have these beliefs. Now that doesn't prove that God or the afterlife exists, but going against those beliefs requires you to assume that all of humanity is under a massive delusion. Being skeptical of beliefs which we are naturally inclined and designed to have requires you assume that we can't trust natural inclination.

Not all tribes have a belief in a god. Not everyone was converted under threat of death or eliminated by those who believed. Even if they all did, we require something new in the modern age, its called evidence. Got any? Its not at all odd think that all of humanity was under a massive delusion when they thought the world was flat, that demons caused disease, that the Earth is the center of the universe, but its odd to think that people still have false beliefs? They get an A for effort, but they were wrong, it's as simple as that. When you base something not on evidence, nothing ensures its accuracy and its just as good as a blind guess. I am more interested in why they believed what they believed, to do the other would be to commit the fallacy of appealing to popularity.

So basically, you would have to go through and justify belief in everything you are naturally inclined to do, because as a skeptic, natural inclination is no longer justification for its belief. A good example is the acceptance of other people's testimony, for testimony is something we just naturally accept.

It depends on the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Generally, claims that we accept by testimony are things that we don't rely on or are very common, very weak claims, such as "I just bought a new Jeep," or "No, I'm not hungry, I just ate". However, if one of your friends who lives on minimum wage says "I just bought a Bugatti Veyron," or "I have fire-breathing dragon in my kitchen " I doubt you would take his word for it.

Basically, what the skeptic has to assume is in fact pretty radical- that humanity is under a massive dellusion and that our natural inclinations account for nothing, despite the fact we act upon those inclinations in everyday life.

We are not talking about how the body functions in everyday life, we are talking about when the body is put under extreme stress, in an oxygen deprived state. In those situations, no, I would not trust those inclinations as an accurate measure of reality. Also, just about every experiment done has shown that testimony is not reliable.

 

[Melomaniacal]

If there is no evidence either way, then there is no justification in a belief either way.

Really?
...really?

I believe that I can actually fly. I've never really tried, so there's no evidence to support that I can or can't. I may very well have the worlds first case of super-natural powers. Maybe god gave them to me. So, is it justified to believe that I can fly?

If there is no evidence to support something, there is literally no justification to believe in it. Otherwise it's blind faith.

 

[CRASHiC]

Melo, there's evidence that man can't fly.

Since there is no reason to pick a side, there is thus no reason to make any decision based on the idea of an afterlife.