The Concept of No Afterlife

Originally posted by chickenlover98
digi the only real question about consciousness is how it is obtained. is it through nuerons and if so how can the conditions be just right for it. if it is just electrical connections that give us personality why is it hard to replicate? it should be easy to bestow consciousness to other animals

Conditions being "just right" is kind of a fallacy. A variety of thought processes can give rise to consciousness...even different brain configurations (in different animals). There isn't one set way.

And it's hard to replicate because of the complexity of the brain. But hell, computers can process information at a faster rate than a brain already. It's just that millions of processing units in the brain, working interchangably, can perform some advanced tasks that computers can't because they're working with a single processor.

And what do you mean by "bestow it to animals"...it's something that is evolved, not a gift that we can thrust upon them.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i was merely replying to alliance who seems to be making a habit{well as far as his rather restricted appearances allow} to negate me. n he said my reasons for beleiving that current theories can not account for this stuff is psuedoscience and psuedomysticism, which it isnt. wiki is actually quite good in information on these things, albeit not perfetc at all. and i do generally agree with you, i do not define qualie etc as MYSTICAL, and i do beleive they ORIGINATE from physical thought processes. i just think that the physical thought processes which sustain and give rise to the objective conciousness are DIFFERENT from the conciousness in itself. to me the conciousness is more of a phenomenon which arises from virtual interactions arising from the real world interaction of the physical components of the brain. sumhow these virtual interaction{and im wildly hypothesising here} can CURL in on themselves both becoming content and context in themselves. which cud perhaps explain SELF awareness. still it creates an explanational gap because to even categorise or define a VIRTUAL process, one has to have CONTEXT against which to judge it or "perspective" and the virtual processes have no reality outside a perspective. but how can we account for this PERSPECTIVE in the brain? that to me is a reason why a PHYSICAL or behaviourist explanation of CONCIUSNESS{not thought processing} seems lacking and "currently"undefineable. doesnt mean i think this phenomenon persists after death{i have no reason to think as such} or that it can exist in itself without the physical component to give "rise" to it. not at all, im just saying that the thought IN ITSELF is different from physical neurological processes.

Agreed, actually. I'm a (hesitant) dualist when it comes to consciousness, and generally try to stay away from it because the Hard Question is literally unanswerable at this juncture. But the original point was simply that consciouness needs physical causes, regardless of its nature, and ceases upon death. To try and justify an extended consciousness is personal belief, but has no justification on rational or scientific terms.

And I'm aware of wiki's validity. Meta-analysis of wiki articles indicates it's only a few tenths of a percent less accurate than an encyclopedia.

How is "consciousness" being defined here? And how is it being differentiated from "mind" / "thought" / "intelligence"?

Originally posted by Mindship
How is "consciousness" being defined here? And how is it being differentiated from "mind" / "thought" / "intelligence"?

See, this is where we got hung up, because there's lots of legit ideas on those questions. The original strand of discussion was that consciousness, however you want to define it, doesn't continue on after death...or at the very least after decomposition (to avoid brief loopholes with electrical brain activity post-mortem). To believe otherwise defies logical explanation.

I myself have just been considering consciousness to be self-awareness, as opposed to the strictly physical descriptions that we'd likely form of mind. But it's actually the semantics of the situation that, imo, got us sidetracked...because our definition of consciousness has no affect on the original debate of whether some form of consciousness exists after death, whether in a soul-vehicle or by other means.

the brain controls our thoughts, and thus our consciousness. when we die, that system breaks down, so even if we were to exist, it wouldn't be us, and we wouldn't be capable of human thought.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Nope, noone.

He's taken the 2nd place in the Trinity...God on Earth..i.e, Jesus's words.

No one thinks the Pope is God on Earth. Nobody.

Originally posted by Nellinator
What does the Pope think?

Good question...hes very keen on people understanding that Hell is not a nice place...

Originally posted by DigiMark007
See, this is where we got hung up, because there's lots of legit ideas on those questions.

Most of these threads, it seems, boil down to the same question, or at least series of questions (pardon my particular wording, but I think you get the idea):
1. Is there a transcendent dimension to reality or not?
2. If there is, where's the proof (corollary: what would be legit proof)?
3. If there is no proof, what does that mean?

Originally posted by Mindship
This is why I asked. What you (I think it's you) call "the Hard Question" is The Question with regard to resolving the topic of this thread.

Most of these threads, it seems, boil down to the same question, or at least series of questions (pardon my particular wording, but I think you get the idea):
1. Is there a transcendent dimension to reality or not?
2. If there is, where's the proof (corollary: what would be legit proof)?
3. If there is no proof, what does that mean?

But even if there is some transcendant dimension, and consciousness taps into that place, it still needs physical forces for it to arise. Thus, with death comes the loss of consciousness and the inability to access the transcendant state/dimension that you mention. For any theory of rebirth, reincarnation, soul, etc. to be valid, it would have to prove otherwise, or at least show evidence to make it a possible outcome.

Death ends a being's life, period. And it's only individual particles that continue on as energy transfer.

this is just a flight of fancy. but if a virtual process can curl in on itself to creat CONTEXT in the same template{dimension/plane of definiton or existance or perspective} as the CONTENT {existing as a contant content only when looked at from a certain PERSPECTIVE}. and become SELF AWARE, or SELF DEFINED{ofcourse Godell's incompleteness theorem of sets wud make it almost impossible in the current universe or computational systems. but ofcourse, thoughts seem like one of those things which have potentially no limits in their subjective expirience}. then wudnt the virtual contruct ARISING from a pysical process in essence become SELF DEFINED and perhaps SELF SUSTAINING{again im going into obscurity here }. and in ITSELF not, 1. considering time as a phenomenon 2. or not needing the physical things that initially gave RISE to it to sustain, define or give context to it? wudnt such a phenomenon be seperate from the physical brain for sustainance. and possibly self evolving or eternal{unless it self evolved to conradict itself ofcourse by evolving elements that made it unstable or deconstructed it from the inside out}. "giving birth to itself" or "defining/giving existance to itself".

"like a bubble of thought wandering in the ocean of nothingness".

what do u people think?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Good question...hes very keen on people understanding that Hell is not a nice place...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
this is just a flight of fancy. but if a virtual process can curl in on itself to creat CONTEXT in the same template{dimension/plane of definiton or existance or perspective} as the CONTENT {existing as a contant content only when looked at from a certain PERSPECTIVE}. and become SELF AWARE, or SELF DEFINED{ofcourse Godell's incompleteness theorem of sets wud make it almost impossible in the current universe or computational systems. but ofcourse, thoughts seem like one of those things which have potentially no limits in their subjective expirience}. then wudnt the virtual contruct ARISING from a pysical process in essence become SELF DEFINED and perhaps SELF SUSTAINING{again im going into obscurity here }. and in ITSELF not, 1. considering time as a phenomenon 2. or not needing the physical things that initially gave RISE to it to sustain, define or give context to it? wudnt such a phenomenon be seperate from the physical brain for sustainance. and possibly self evolving or eternal{unless it self evolved to conradict itself ofcourse by evolving elements that made it unstable or deconstructed it from the inside out}. "giving birth to itself" or "defining/giving existance to itself".

"like a bubble of thought wandering in the ocean of nothingness".

what do u people think?

It's an interesting premise, but we can't substantiate it with evidence nor tear it down with logical refutation other than to point to the lack of evidence. A flight of fancy, like you said, and nothing more currently....but interesting, if nothing else.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Catholic doctrine supports that while there is salvation after death, even then not everyone will be saved. Death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire. Official Catholic doctrine is that those that end up in the lake of fire suffer for eternity, but I find annihilation more plausible.

Thank you for preaching Catholic Doctrine to me...

He wasn't preaching.

I think he was 🤨

He wasn't.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
But even if there is some transcendant dimension, and consciousness taps into that place, it still needs physical forces for it to arise.

Originally posted by Mindship
My thinking was that consciousness (in the broadest sense) originates from that transcendent dimension and arises through physical forces rather than from them. Upon death, the body dies and the ego dies, but not consciousness.

I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Justifications for a plausible extension of consciousness do exist (yours among them), I just don't find them likely since you're dealing with something that is as yet not backed by evidence, and we have nothing but the unanswered Hard Question to even give it the possibility of existing.

Originally posted by Mindship
My thinking was that consciousness (in the broadest sense) originates from that transcendent dimension and arises through physical forces rather than from them. Upon death, the body dies and the ego dies, but not consciousness.

Its amazing to see into what positions people are willing to contort themselves.