Consciousness after death...

[Haphazard]

I was just thinking. If there was still consciousness after death but the consciousness didn't "go" anywhere (heaven, hell, valhalla, whatever you like), well, can you imagine how horrific that would be?

 

[Moiety]

Some people can have fun without getting off their arse ya know? They are called Ps.

I don't see the big deal...

 

[Haphazard]

Some people can have fun without getting off their arse ya know? They are called Ps.

I don't see the big deal...

I don't know, the idea of having all my neurons eaten out while I'm still trying oh-so-feebly to use them kind of gets to me.

 

[nozflubber]

Why would your consciousness be associated with/near your body at that point?

for that matter, what the hell is consciousness dependent upon? are neurons the only "magical" matter in the universe that can produce consciousness? Why?

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

Can I imagine how horrible that would be? Probably.

What do you mean by consciousness "not going anywhere"? If consciousness follows the same "laws" as physical bodies, it will go somewhere in space-time. Is that any consolation?

 

[sleepy]

I don't really believe in consciousness. It's an illusion. So if it doesn't exist, it can't go anywhere either.

 

[erm]

I don't really believe in consciousness. It's an illusion. So if it doesn't exist, it can't go anywhere either.

See, I'm of the opposite opinion.

The only thing that exists is consciousness, as I still have yet to see evidence for anything else's existence. Though that leads me to agnosticism, acting as though nothing else exists, as opposed to actually denying that anything else exists; No evidence, no assumptions.

So, to the question, I guess it would mean proof is required that brain or the any of the world continues on if consciousness changes or ceases.

It would be very strange if conscious experience didn't change but the brain did, those two things usually correlate. So I doubt emotions and all that would be anything like they are when you're alive. In fact, I would be very surprised if, assuming consciousness continues after death, anything about it remains similar to what we have experienced in this existence.

If it did, it would be frustrating, but you'd adapt, I guess.

Why would your consciousness be associated with/near your body at that point?

for that matter, what the hell is consciousness dependent upon? are neurons the only "magical" matter in the universe that can produce consciousness? Why?

Well, consciousness itself doesn't correlate to the brain any more than to a rock. However, the conscious experiences that we have correlate consistently with brain. So conscious experience, at least the conscious experiences we correlate to the brain, would presumably be strongly affected by the destruction of the brain.

 

[sleepy]

See, I'm of the opposite opinion.

The only thing that exists is consciousness, as I still have yet to see evidence for anything else's existence. Though that leads me to agnosticism, acting as though nothing else exists, as opposed to actually denying that anything else exists.

What evidence for consciousness have you seen? I might see a certain 'awareness' in species like humans as a whole. But individual consciousness, I doubt that exists. It's purely mechanical. And wont change when you die, only transform to another state of energy. Split and divided to a whole ant hive, or any other thing. It's a part of the weather system.

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

you should check out some definitions for "awareness" and "consciousness".

 

[sleepy]

Why?

 

[erm]

What evidence for consciousness have you seen?

I think I can best express this through an example. I doubt it will be clear though.

Take me imagining a giant blue square. Some people would say, the arrangement of particles and energy in my brain is causing me to speak and act like I am seeing a giant blue square.

Now from their perspective I understand that, since they don't have my experiences of the giant blue square. But from my perspective, I am seeing a giant blue square. The giant blue square is the thing I am having direct experience of, and is the thing I can be certain, in that moment at least, that it exists. They can attempt to show me these particles and this energy, but in the end, whilst they certainly exist in some sense, I am seeing all this evidence in the same way I am seeing the giant blue square. As a conscious experience.

So, for all this evidence people have for the existence of a material world outside our consciousness, I can only see it as more conscious experience. I then don't see how logically, using only conscious experience, one can show the existence of anything but more conscious experience.

It seems futile to me, to try reaching outside of conscious experience, which encompasses everything we talk and think about, to talk about things outside of it.

Baring in mind that all science and empirical investigation functions identically, and is just as practical if we remember that it is all conscious experience we manipulate. In fact, given revelations about the world in the past 100 years, it may even function better if we remember that. Especially as more people begin investigating what consciousness is through empirical research beyond everyday experiences.

Summary: Everything I have ever witnessed is part of a conscious experience.

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

Why?

So you will understand how awareness and consciousness are related.

 

[sleepy]

So you will understand how awareness and consciousness are related.

I'd prefer if you tell me.

I think I can best express this through an example. I doubt it will be clear though.

Take me imagining a giant blue square. Some people would say, the arrangement of particles and energy in my brain is causing me to speak and act like I am seeing a giant blue square.

Now from their perspective I understand that, since they don't have my experiences of the giant blue square. But from my perspective, I am seeing a giant blue square. The giant blue square is the thing I am having direct experience of, and is the thing I can be certain, in that moment at least, that it exists. They can attempt to show me these particles and this energy, but in the end, whilst they certainly exist in some sense, I am seeing all this evidence in the same way I am seeing the giant blue square. As a conscious experience.

So, for all this evidence people have for the existence of a material world outside our consciousness, I can only see it as more conscious experience. I then don't see how logically, using only conscious experience, one can show the existence of anything but more conscious experience.

It seems futile to me, to try reaching outside of conscious experience, which encompasses everything we talk and think about, to talk about things outside of it.

Baring in mind that all science and empirical investigation functions identically, and is just as practical if we remember that it is all conscious experience we manipulate. In fact, given revelations about the world in the past 100 years, it may even function better if we remember that. Especially as more people begin investigating what consciousness is through empirical research beyond everyday experiences.

Summary: Everything I have ever witnessed is part of a conscious experience.

It's clear, at least my interpretation . And I like it. Blended with my mental model, this actually provides a realisation for truth to accept difficult internal feelings that can be challenging, but necessary to accept and embrace.

So on a practical note for the individual your idea makes a lot of sense. To me at least.

So what you said being of the opposite opinion might be a bit of me not expressing myself clearly. It seems to me that you described the actual experience, internal. While I explained what is, the external. From some God's perspective. So it seems they only make sense when combined.

 

[tinkerbell]

consiousnes post death would be in the terratory of soul/after life/change of plain.....the whole do people really die issue or do they reincarnate, or do they change into spirt (not that they cant do all of the above for a time).

I like to think of death as transitory, and that you go into aholding ground. I do beleive your conciousness.soul splits form your body and is present for a time after your death and then departs, how long, I don't know.

Have a look at the movie What Dreams May Come, with Robin Williams, it's pretty thought provoking in some ways (beautifully shot but a slow movie)

After my dad died I was always a bit wary when I was changing cloths that he might be watching... VERY illogical.... LOL but it was just one of those goofy things....

 

[Feops]

I don't think consciousness after death could exist in the form we perceive it, as in, our thinking selves. We can prove that our ability to think and perceive are affected by our physical state (ie. brain damage) so I think that would simply end once electrical activity in the brain ceases.

If there's some other force that persists beyond, that would be interesting.

 

[Litvyak]

are neurons the only "magical" matter in the universe that can produce consciousness?

Yes. I don't think there's a need to answer the "why" part.

Rest assured: death is the end for consciousness. I agree with the Op, it's a horrible thought.

 

[Eric B]

It begs the question of what exactly is consciousness. Religion will say it is a "soul" that happens to "inhabit" a body. Science seems to lean towards it just being the result of a chemical process. On one hand, I don't see how chemicals can create a conscious entity. On the other, it is true that our consciousness is very dependent on this biological organism. We cannot do anything without it, not receive information from the outside (through the senses), not even process information inside. Whenparts of the body die (amputation, etc), I imagine there is no sensation coming from that part of the neural roadmap anymore. (Contrary to some religious portrayals of a "soul" and/or "spirit" shaped just like the body, based on passages like Lazarus & the Rich man!)
So once the brain dies, it seems there would be no way to receive or process information. But then what is left? If the "immortal soul" simply "takes over" then, then you wonder why it depended so exclusively on the body now.

 

[YaeRRoW]

Get back to you on that after I die.

But seriosly I'd be horified :horor: to find out about after life. I though that life is more like "one shot one opportunity" type of a thing. And what you make of it is up to you. No justification afterwards.

 

[Haphazard]

It begs the question of what exactly is consciousness. Religion will say it is a "soul" that happens to "inhabit" a body. Science seems to lean towards it just being the result of a chemical process. On one hand, I don't see how chemicals can create a conscious entity. On the other, it is true that our consciousness is very dependent on this biological organism. We cannot do anything without it, not receive information from the outside (through the senses), not even process information inside. Whenparts of the body die (amputation, etc), I imagine there is no sensation coming from that part of the neural roadmap anymore. (Contrary to some religious portrayals of a "soul" and/or "spirit" shaped just like the body, based on passages like Lazarus & the Rich man!)
So once the brain dies, it seems there would be no way to receive or process information. But then what is left? If the "immortal soul" simply "takes over" then, then you wonder why it depended so exclusively on the body now.

Well, see, the thing is that it is possible to not have consciousness when one is alive, and it is also possible to imagine sensation when one isn't there (see phantom limb syndrome).

 

[Eric B]

OK, I read up on that, but then, that's still nerves sending signals to the brain, so it still won't tell us what we feel when the brain itself is dead.