What do you think happens after death?

[mojo pixy]

There is no gawd.

There aint no gawd!

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

There bain't no dawg!

 

[Carl Steele]

Dawkins can come across as dogmatic, on the God issue, but he's not really.

Dawkins is convinced he knows something which he can't know. It's one thing to knock down the clumsy arguments of a few theists, quite another to explain the nature of existence. And if I want to listen to counter-arguments to theists I'd much rather listen to someone like Bart Ehrman who actually knows what he's talking about. Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens used clever schoolboy arguments which were usually enough because their opponents were not very sophisticated. But when Hitchens went up against William Lane Craig he didn't do so well. And for clarity's sake I don't find Craig at all convincing.

You still haven't come up with any convincing reasons why humans are so special. Why should they get eternal life when a dandelion doesn't?

Where did I say humans are special? I think that's your construction.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Dawkins is convinced he knows something which he can't know. It's one thing to knock down the clumsy arguments of a few theists, quite another to explain the nature of existence. And if I want to listen to counter-arguments to theists I'd much rather listen to someone like Bart Ehrman who actually knows what he's talking about. Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens used clever schoolboy arguments which were usually enough because their opponents were not very sophisticated. But when Hitchens went up against William Lane Craig he didn't do so well. And for clarity's sake I don't find Craig at all convincing.


Where did I say humans are special? I think that's your construction.

The clumsy arguments of a few theists are some of the best arguments for the existence of the Christian god that Christendom has come up with over the centuries. And you are right. All it takes are schoolboy arguments to demolish them.

You don't need to be able to explain the nature of existence to understand that Christian explanations are worthless. That's all Dawkins has done.

As for WLCraig, I haven't seen his interactions with Dawkins, but his sophisticated approach still relies on faith and belief at its core.

 

[Carl Steele]

The clumsy arguments of a few theists are some of the best arguments for the existence of the Christian god that Christendom has come up with over the centuries. And you are right. All it takes are schoolboy arguments to demolish them.

I'm not a Christian or a theist of any sort, but I don't think this is true. Take a look at Evelyn Underhill's "Mysticism" for example.

The atheist-theist debates were mostly a money-making grift. Far more heat than light, but light was never the intention.

You don't need to be able to explain the nature of existence to understand that Christian explanations are worthless. That's all Dawkins has done.

My point is, Dawkins does think he understands the nature of existence, perhaps because he thinks the only alternative to his dogma is a theist dogma. As I've implied, Dawkins is not very sophisticated in these matters.

As for WLCraig, I haven't seen his interactions with Dawkins, but his sophisticated approach still relies on faith and belief at its core.

Dawkins consistently refused to debate Craig one-on-one, although he was challenged to do so many times. Make of that what you will.

 

[Teaboy]

Dawkins is convinced he knows something which he can't know.

I don't think this is true. I'm not into any great defence of Dawkins but he specifically states that he is not 100% on the subject because it can never be a reasonable position to hold given we don't know. He is as convinced as someone can be without knowing for sure. Its a subtle but important difference.

As for me I actually believe its a question humanity will never be able to answer conclusively so in that regard I try not to give it too much thought. I try in my life to spend my time worrying about things I can affect.

I've not seen any evidence in my life to suggest there is anything afterwards and I live my life assuming there isn't. That isn't to dismiss the experiences of people who have felt they have come close to the afterlife or seen glimpses of it. Those experiences can be explained away quite easily but likewise some of them may well be true. Who knows?

I believe if I spend my time concentrating on the here and now its a framework for how to live my best life. I recognise my privilege in this and the choices an accident of birth gives me but that's the way it is.

I have no time for most organised religions for various reasons but the main reason is that they all seem so obviously man made. Each to their own though.

 

[Hearse Pileup]

I've been reading a lot about panpsychism and the hard problem of consciousness recently. That and experiencing ego death on LSD makes me think that there's a possiblity that there's some merit in the outlook; especially as physics gets so weird when you get to the quantum level. Does conscious measurement cause a collapse of the quantum waveform, or just the act of measuring?

I'm not 100% convinced of the theory, but it's a nicer thought than just saying that the mind is electrical signals in the brain and that when it fizzles out so do you. And it doesn't really change much, so I like to entertain it.

It's also fun because if we discover that some kind of dualism is indeed true in some way, it kinda fucks up the idea of digitising consciousness'. Big if true.

 

[CNT36]

Fuck knows but it will be colder.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

I've been reading a lot about panpsychism and the hard problem of consciousness recently. That and experiencing ego death on LSD makes me think that there's a possiblity that there's some merit in the outlook; especially as physics gets so weird when you get to the quantum level. Does conscious measurement cause a collapse of the quantum waveform, or just the act of measuring?

I'm not 100% convinced of the theory, but it's a nicer thought than just saying that the mind is electrical signals in the brain and that when it fizzles out so do you. And it doesn't really change much, so I like to entertain it.

It's also fun because if we discover that some kind of dualism is indeed true in some way, it kinda fucks up the idea of digitising consciousness'. Big if true.

Fuxake. That's made my brain explode. No wonder people just stick to simple fairy tale religions - it's much easier to cope with.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Dawkins consistently refused to debate Craig one-on-one, although he was challenged to do so many times. Make of that what you will.

My take on that is that Dawkins just can't be bothered. He's been challenged to debate by zillions of believers, creationists and others over the years. He hasn't got the time. Craig is no more worth debating with than any of the others.

 

[NoXion]

I've been reading a lot about panpsychism and the hard problem of consciousness recently. That and experiencing ego death on LSD makes me think that there's a possiblity that there's some merit in the outlook; especially as physics gets so weird when you get to the quantum level. Does conscious measurement cause a collapse of the quantum waveform, or just the act of measuring?

I'm not 100% convinced of the theory, but it's a nicer thought than just saying that the mind is electrical signals in the brain and that when it fizzles out so do you. And it doesn't really change much, so I like to entertain it.

It's also fun because if we discover that some kind of dualism is indeed true in some way, it kinda fucks up the idea of digitising consciousness'. Big if true.

How does panpsychism have any merit at all? "I took drugs once and thought it sounded like a good idea" is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the notion.

"Quantum consciousness" is just a load of New Age bollocks. The collapse of the wave function doesn't have to be caused by anything with consciousness.

Dualism has no bearing on digitising consciousness either. It just means there'd be something else that would need to be digitised.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Trouble with mysticism is that it can mean whatever you want it to mean. All sweet and dandy, but it can no more explain the origins of life, or answer questions about death and reality, than other religious approaches. Some people may find it useful personally or find inspiration artistically, but it stands outside of anything objective by definition. Mystical experiences are influenced by the beliefs of surrounding societies, by and large, and can never provide proof of anything. Science can't prove everything by any means, but it gradually eats into large areas previously explained by religion.

I still come back to the question "in this humongous universe what's so bleeding special about humans?"

 

[NoXion]

Trouble with mysticism is that it can mean whatever you want it to mean. All sweet and dandy, but it can no more explain the origins of life, or answer questions about death and reality, than other religious approaches. Some people may find it useful personally or find inspiration artistically, but it stands outside of anything objective by definition. Mystical experiences are influenced by the beliefs of surrounding societies, by and large, and can never provide proof of anything. Science can't prove everything by any means, but it gradually eats into large areas previously explained by religion.

I still come back to the question "in this humongous universe what's so bleeding special about humans?"

I would expand that a bit, and ask "what's so special about consciousness"?

That's not to say that conscious intelligence isn't utterly fascinating or something worth seeking out and/or preserving, but stuff like religion and panpsychism make it out as if consciousness is somehow central to existence or written into the universe, when as far as we can actually tell, it's only been around for about a million years or a few hundred million years, depending on what definition of consciousness you use. Point is, the universe has existed just fine for billions of years without conscious beings around.

 

[8ball]

I would expand that a bit, and ask "what's so special about consciousness"?

That's not to say that conscious intelligence isn't utterly fascinating or something worth seeking out and/or preserving, but stuff like religion and panpsychism make it out as if consciousness is somehow central to existence or written into the universe, when as far as we can actually tell, it's only been around for about a million years or a few hundred million years, depending on what definition of consciousness you use. Point is, the universe has existed just fine for billions of years without conscious beings around.

Well, pansychism doesn't hold with your last point.
Consciousness is a very weird thing, but I think you're right that there is a whiff of the "giraffe creationist argument" when it comes to our obsession with it.

Tbf, it may well be the last great mystery we solve (or have a chance of solving).

 

[ruffneck23]

It's probably ok for people to share their beliefs in what happens after death on a thread about what happens after death without suffering accusations of being a returning troll, even if they are a bit oddball. It's a thorny problem, and personally I'm glad some people have theories that help them deal with it, cause the void I'm anticipating isn't very comforting.

When a dear friend died recently, I found this bit of writing by Aaron Freeman (AKA Gene Ween of the band Ween, strangely - a band I've always ignored though I now mean to perhaps check them out) quite helpful. It isn't actually that much a conceptual leap to go from this stuff - based on solid scientific principles - to a belief that consciousness might possibly also carry on, or reconstitute itself or whatever. Not a leap I've made, but it's definitely more believable than the christian version. Anyway.

Aaron Freeman gives advice for planning your funeral:

You want a physicist to speak at your funeral. You want the physicist to talk to your grieving family about the conservation of energy, so they will understand that your energy has not died. You want the physicist to remind your sobbing mother about the first law of thermodynamics; that no energy gets created in the universe, and none is destroyed. You want your mother to know that all your energy, every vibration, every BTU of heat, every wave of every particle that was her beloved child remains with her in this world. You want the physicist to tell your weeping father that amid energies of the cosmos, you gave as good as you got.

And at one point you'd hope that the physicist would step down from the pulpit and walk to your brokenhearted spouse there in the pew and tell him that all the photons that ever bounced off your face, all the particles whose paths were interrupted by your smile, by the touch of your hair, hundreds of trillions of particles, have raced off like children, their ways forever changed by you. And as your widow rocks in the arms of a loving family, may the physicist let her know that all the photons that bounced from you were gathered in the particle detectors that are her eyes, that those photons created within her constellations of electromagnetically charged neurons whose energy will go on forever.

And the physicist will remind the congregation of how much of all our energy is given off as heat. There may be a few fanning themselves with their programs as he says it. And he will tell them that the warmth that flowed through you in life is still here, still part of all that we are, even as we who mourn continue the heat of our own lives.

And you'll want the physicist to explain to those who loved you that they need not have faith; indeed, they should not have faith. Let them know that they can measure, that scientists have measured precisely the conservation of energy and found it accurate, verifiable and consistent across space and time. You can hope your family will examine the evidence and satisfy themselves that the science is sound and that they'll be comforted to know your energy's still around. According to the law of the conservation of energy, not a bit of you is gone; you're just less orderly. Amen.

That is brilliant, thank you for sharing it

 

[Carl Steele]

My take on that is that Dawkins just can't be bothered. He's been challenged to debate by zillions of believers, creationists and others over the years. He hasn't got the time. Craig is no more worth debating with than any of the others.

But Dawkins did debate with lots of people back in the day and during this time he specifically avoided debating Craig, who was considered to be more formidable than the others (Dan Dennett for example praised Craig's debating prowess). At the time Dawkins-Craig was the debate everyone wanted, everyone except Dawkins that is.

I will reiterate, I don't share the high opinion of Craig.

I'm not into any great defence of Dawkins but he specifically states that he is not 100% on the subject

He does say this when pressed, true enough. But before he will entertain a quark sized iota of doubt he wants the stars to be rearranged in the night sky. And even then ...

Trouble with mysticism is that it can mean whatever you want it to mean. All sweet and dandy, but it can no more explain the origins of life, or answer questions about death and reality, than other religious approaches. Some people may find it useful personally or find inspiration artistically, but it stands outside of anything objective by definition. Mystical experiences are influenced by the beliefs of surrounding societies, by and large, and can never provide proof of anything. Science can't prove everything by any means, but it gradually eats into large areas previously explained by religion.

Mysticism will not give you certainty, that's for sure. Neither will listening to music or reading a novel or sitting quietly in nature. But all these things can give you something a textbook won't (and I'm all in favour of textbooks).

Evelyn Underhill's work which I cited earlier is really quite remarkable. Too bad it doesn't prove anything.

I still come back to the question "in this humongous universe what's so bleeding special about humans?"

Since you seem fixated on this idea, which only you have mentioned, do you consider the death of a human being to be more consequential than the death of a daffodil? If so why? After all, what's so bleeding special about humans?

I've been reading a lot about panpsychism and the hard problem of consciousness recently.

Panpsychism is interesting. It may well be that consciousness is the basis of everything.

 

[Hearse Pileup]

How does panpsychism have any merit at all? "I took drugs once and thought it sounded like a good idea" is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the notion.

"Quantum consciousness" is just a load of New Age bollocks. The collapse of the wave function doesn't have to be caused by anything with consciousness.

Dualism has no bearing on digitising consciousness either. It just means there'd be something else that would need to be digitised.

I mean, to be fair, I didn't say I have a firmly held belief that this is the case - just that it's an interesting experiment concept. And as farytales go, it's one that gels quite well with my life experiences.

As for collapsing the wave function, we have no way of knowing what consciousness has to do with consciousness it or not. What we do know is that the act of measuring does collapse the wave function, but as we have no way of percieving something without it interacting with a conscious being and knowing about it there's simply not a test we have for this yet.

As for dualism it really depends on, if (big if) we accept there is this other substance, what its properties are. It may be possible to digitise them, but what media could store it - until we have more information it's not really a question that can be answered.

I'm not making any grand statements about the fundamental state [of things] I know to be an incontravertable truth; but I think that considering how weird reality can get at a quantum level it's an interesting idea.

With regard to the question 'what's so special about consciousness', my answer would be precisely that we have no measurable way of accurately defining or measuring it yet. And in light of that, how can we prove any of this one way or the other?

Honestly I just find it fascinating that it's possible to have a conversation like this that's still grounded in some element of science - however misty eyed and 'fluffy' it may be.

EDIT: (also edited above for coherency)

Tbf, it may well be the last great mystery we solve (or have a chance of solving).

Just wanted to add in light of this that we may well eventually find out some things simply can't be known, at least not if they're going to be based on logic and maths as we currently know them. Taking Gödel's incompleteness theory into account that is. Some things may just never be provable. It certainly seems like both 'the mind is chemical reactions in the brain' and 'the mind is a freaky ineffable phenomena' have a similar feel to 'there is no proof for the statement with Gödel number g.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Since you seem fixated on this idea, which only you have mentioned, do you consider the death of a human being to be more consequential than the death of a daffodil? If so why? After all, what's so bleeding special about humans?

I do think the death of a human is of more consequence than that of a daffodil, or even a dandelion as I suggested, but solely because I am a human and not a plant. You'll just have to take my word on this.

I may be one of the few to criticize this human-centred view of the universe, but someone has to be bold. The simple point here is that all too frequently our attempts at explaining stuff fall at the first hurdle, because they look at everything from a human viewpoint. Our species didn't even exist a few hundred thousand years ago. None of the rest of the universe (as far as we know) has humans in it, so explaining the origin of all of that needs a bit more work. Damn, the doorbell's ringing - got to go.

 

[Carl Steele]

I may be one of the few to criticize this human-centred view of the universe, but someone has to be bold. The simple point here is that all too frequently our attempts at explaining stuff fall at the first hurdle, because they look at everything from a human viewpoint. Our species didn't even exist a few hundred thousand years ago. None of the rest of the universe (as far as we know) has humans in it, so explaining the origin of all of that needs a bit more work.

Oddly enough I agree with this, at least on the face of it. Our humanity limits us severely. Can we step outside what we are and view existence from a different pov? This is exactly what those we call mystics (not a word I like, but I have no other) are attempting to do. Problem is, those who have experiences while meditating or using substances or sleeping, or between waking and sleeping or whatever, return to the everyday world and reinterpret what they can recall according to the human experience. There is, for example, a load of symbolic bullshit used to decipher dreams, or rather, in my opinion, rob them of meaning. People who have apparently profound experiences of "oneness" while meditating are rarely changed, or even affected, by what they see - because it's all made to fit into some ideology or other.

 

[Clair De Lune]

Fwiw I don't think humans are special at all. Our consciousness leads to prolonged anxiety and over ruminating. We have to be re-taught to be mindful and live in the moment whereas other animals live in that state constantly ...I for one am jealous

 

[Hearse Pileup]

The problem with humanism; we aren't the centre of the world, nor should we see ourselves that way.

It's kind of why I mentioned the idea of digitising consciousness - until we know what it is, it's kind of very human centric to assume that a) we're the only beings imbued with it, and b) that we can somehow manipulate, transport or create it.

 

[8ball]

Surprised no one has brought up the term “speciesism” yet.

 

[8ball]

Fwiw I don't think humans are special at all. Our consciousness leads to prolonged anxiety and over ruminating. We have to be re-taught to be mindful and live in the moment whereas other animals live in that state constantly ...I for one am jealous

That’s a side effect of exactly what is considered to make humans special. It’s a bit like giraffes saying they are not special because the neckache is such a bugger.

 

[mojo pixy]

Surprised no one has brought up the term “speciesism” yet.

It's a bit of an awkward mouthful isn't it. Human Supremacism would probably be more accurate. But since the only life forms discussing it are humans, it's not surprising there's not much condemnation of it to be found.

 

[Carl Steele]

Fwiw I don't think humans are special at all. Our consciousness leads to prolonged anxiety and over ruminating. We have to be re-taught to be mindful and live in the moment whereas other animals live in that state constantly

Never been convinced by the idea of living in the moment. Since we never stand still it's not clear what now means.

If mindfulness means paying attention I am all for it. But we need to learn to observe without trying to explain. One thing I have noticed while paying attention is how life pushes and pulls us this way and then that, and we think we've made a decision. Unlike other animals we make up reasons for what we do. But maybe the reasons are superfluous. Maybe we're just reacting to internal and external stimuli.

 

[cyberpink]

edit... Balls. Serge Forward got there first. I really must remember to read the whole thread first if I've had a couple of days off.

But ... this is the reincarnation of Serge's post

haha nice one yes. Derek Acoora was a shambles. Total rip off merchant.

 

[cyberpink]

You sound like an 18 year old called Josh or Emily who has just got back from the four month escorted gap yah experience of SEAsia paid for by working in Daddy’s company for three weeks. I can’t wait till you do your first term at ‘uni’ and rush home to tell your pony about socialism…

Although my money is on reincarnated banned poster.

It's true I am a zombie reincarnated but that is none of your biz

 

[cyberpink]

cyberpink were you Clinton Baptiste in another life?

probably. I was more likely likey

Jean-Michel Basquiat​

 

[cyberpink]

I wonder how much of a shift in thinking has occurred around how long our counsciousness survives after we're declared dead, since medical advances have enabled multiple new means of resuscitation. When then, are we truly dead? Is it when a certain length of time has passed or when our current medical means of resuscitating someone is exhausted?

I worked in a residential home for the elderly when I was a teenager and I befriended and spoke to many of the residents whilst there. A few died during that time and I noticed a significant shift in their beliefs, understanding and reported experiences in the lead up to their deaths. One man in particular who had been a hermit, atheist, alcoholic before being admitted reported that he had seen his (deceased) sister in his room days before he died. This brought him great comfort. It also completely changed his long held beliefs about an afterlife.
I guess these early experiences of being around the dying have impacted how I view death and the idea of an afterlife. (extended consciousness after we are declared dead)
They've not made me certain or have complete faith* by any means. Quite the opposite. They have ensured curiosity, openess and acceptance of what I/we don't yet know or understand. I personally can't fathom how we can discount so firmly and with such certainty, that which we've yet to experience. It seems such an arrogant position to take.

*it's so hard to find the right language to express oneself without reverting to religious terminology such as faith and soul which I think muddies the waters massively.

Lots of people say that we need to be able to observe and measure something in order to believe it. But does it always have to be measured in a quantitative manner? Do qualitative methods of research not count? Such as the observations of the dying, such as interviews from people who have been 'brought back to life' and speak of their experiences in the interim? To me, it would be foolhardy to ignore those who have experienced something we have not.

I'm intrigued by studies such as Aware and now Aware II -https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/life-after-life-does-consciousness-continue-after-our-brain-dies

nobody can deny the detailed accounts of the reincarnated kids

 

[ElizabethofYork]

nobody can deny the detailed accounts of the reincarnated kids

Which detailed accounts?