# life after death (and the internet)



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

This tread is where people who'd like to do so can discuss whether there is life after death, and, if so, what it is like. 

Personally, I'd be surprised if there is life after death. The traditions claiming that there is don't have a good record with anything that can be empirically verified, so in the absence of evidence, I don't know why we'd trust them on anything that can't.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

There is nothing I have ever experienced, read, or heard from others that makes me believe there is anything remotely like life after death. Once we die our brain functions and consciousness cease and we are no more.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> There is nothing I have ever experienced, read, or heard from others that makes me believe there is anything remotely like life after death. Once we die our brain functions and consciousness cease and we are no more.


This may be another case where ignorance is not bliss, eh?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

What's this thread doing here? We have a group for it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> What's this thread doing here? We have a group for it.


There was a discussion of this on another thread, even though the OP of that thread had not intended to have it, and I figured it'd be better for it to have its own thread.


----------



## skalpel (Nov 20, 2011)

Our consciousness is fueled entirely by our minds. So once the mind is completely dead and not functioning at all I can't see how our consciousness could exist anywhere else. So I'd say no, I don't believe there is life after death. But it sure would be nice if there was wouldn't it?!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> _Poley_'s certainty may be worthy of comment without letting that bugbear *RELIGION* into the thread, since it cannot derive from *SCIENTIFIC METHOD*.


So what? The fact that someone believes something that hasn't been proven in a laboratory is an excuse to derail the thread in precisely the way the OP asked not to do?

Really, no thoughtful person claims to believe _nothing but_ what "can derive from *SCIENTIFIC METHOD*." Especially if you choose to define that method very narrowly.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> So what? The fact that someone believes something that hasn't been proven in a laboratory is an excuse to derail the thread in precisely the way the OP asked not to do?
> 
> Really, no thoughtful person claims to believe _nothing but_ what "can derive from *SCIENTIFIC METHOD*." Especially if you choose to define that method very narrowly.
> 
> And, seriously dude, WTF with the bold and italics? Why bring the fury? That's why it's almost impossible to discuss something civilly with you.


Hah. No fury involved, _science_. The 'bold and italics' are a form of hyperbole. Seriously dude, your sense of humor is more-than-somewhat limited. And that may be why "it's almost impossible to discuss something civilly with you."

:devil: <--- That is also intended to be humorous. I don't expect to change at this late date, so maybe you should employ the ignore list; ease your mind, dude.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I wonder if much of humanity would truly be happy if they got what they wished for? That being eternal life? I choose to be grateful for the life I have here on earth. I'm not going to waste time hoping and praying for the unlikely. Being conscious and plagued by thinking for a zillion years is not my idea of heaven.

If you choose to approach death from the spiritual aspect like the eastern mystics, they never point to the mind as the true self. So from this perspective we still won't be doing any thinking/conscious activity after death.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

starthrower said:


> [...]
> If you choose to approach death from the spiritual aspect like the eastern mystics, they never point to the mind as the true self. So from this perspective we still won't be doing any thinking/conscious activity after death.


Even if one chooses (or however it occurs) to believe that the mind creates/controls a soul that is modified by life's experiences, there is some logical basis for assuming that the soul ceases to be modified after death - the mind no longer existing. That stasis seems to me to be equivalent to death, under the principle that 'Life is change - death is the end of change'. In that scenario there is no life after death, whatever else there may be.


----------



## Aro (Sep 19, 2011)

I suppose many can have their own theories on this subject but really, no one can ever know what happens after one dies. Even those who strongly believe that the afterlife does not exist cannot be entirely certain, for there is no testimony of someone that has died to explain what really happens. I believe that life is too short to be concerned about what will happen when it ends . We should really use what life brings us and live it to the best we can. After all, what counts in this world is what you leave behind when you're gone.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I think life after death is possible but not probable, and especially not an exclusive club where your eligibility for membership is determined by your proclivity to kneeling down in specially appointed buildings at specially appointed times.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Crudblud said:


> I think life after death is possible but not probable, and especially not an exclusive club where your eligibility for membership is determined by your proclivity to kneeling down in specially appointed buildings at specially appointed times.


I registered a 'like' for this post, mainly because I agree with all of the sentiment. The particulars may need work. My active Catholic relatives do not believe that "eligibility for membership is determined by your proclivity to kneeling down in specially appointed buildings at specially appointed times" (there are considerations they deem more important - one of which I am damned by). Also, the notion of _life_ after death is difficult to work with, the term 'life' being an of-the-world thing. That's probably why the 'soul' concept was invented, way back in the dawn of humanity.

_Luke_ may be fairly well disgusted with this thread by now; I think I will cease and desist.

:tiphat:


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Aro said:


> I suppose many can have their own theories on this subject but really, no one can ever know what happens after one dies. Even those who strongly believe that the afterlife does not exist cannot be entirely certain, for there is no testimony of someone that has died to explain what really happens. I believe that life is too short to be concerned about what will happen when it ends . We should really use what life brings us and live it to the best we can. After all, what counts in this world is what you leave behind when you're gone.


to me the question is logically invalid. it's like asking: what is at the edge of the universe? or what happened before the beginning of time? these questions are not valid because they are self-contradicting. by definition, there is nothing "beyond" space and nothing "before" time, just like there is no life when you're dead.

you're treating the question like a gameshow: "what is behind door number 1?" we can't really know for sure... but the analogy is incorrect because concepts like time, space, or life, don't exist behind the door, so asking the question and guessing the answer, or even saying that we don't know, leads nowhere. there is nothing to know!


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Seriously dude, your sense of humor is more-than-somewhat limited.


You forget that your sense of sarcasm is more-than-somewhat developed.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Klavierspieler said:


> You forget that your sense of sarcasm is more-than-somewhat developed.


Interesting. I don't consider myself to be at all sarcastic. Another conceptual thing, eh?

I suppose it could be that my sense of humor extends to the more-than-somewhat dry?

In any case, if you don't get it there is no reason for expecting _science_ to. My apologies, _science_. I shall go into what I expect to be a next world misunderstood in this one.

:angel:


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Of course, while we are right to say that "no one can truly know, so don't be certain", our honest default position ought to be precisely, "I don't know, _so I won't speculate as to there being anything_." Those who offer precise descriptions of an afterlife, either because of scripture or 'intuition', are required to provide hard evidence. Otherwise, we are wise to live our lives as though nothing awaits us once we expire.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Of course, while we are right to say that "no one can truly know, so don't be certain", our honest default position ought to be precisely, "I don't know, _so I won't speculate as to there being anything_." Those who offer precise descriptions of an afterlife, either because of scripture or 'intuition', are required to provide hard evidence. Otherwise, we are wise to live our lives as though nothing awaits us once we expire.


It isn't clear to me why "we are wise to live our lives as though nothing awaits us once we expire" is wise. It _is_ reasonably clear that "precise descriptions of an afterlife" should be salted before consumption.

[Sorry _Luke_, these teasers keep showing up.]


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

It's those that come up with the claim that something is that have to prove it, not vice-versa.


----------



## MrPlayerismus (Jan 2, 2012)

My speculation as to what awaits us after this life is...well...reincarnation.It just comes to mee naturally,without any scientific support whatsoever(like there is one regarding this subject).The soul is transferred to another being in another land,planet,galaxy and even universe...I would like to think of the past experiences as existent.I believe that they will be just there.For example,the music I listen to in this life will have an effect-a very side one,that is-on my next lives...


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Of course, while we are right to say that "no one can truly know, so don't be certain", our honest default position ought to be precisely, "I don't know, so I won't speculate as to there being anything."


Speculation is good and healthy, what isn't good and healthy is paying special attention to the many times edited, many times translated (always by imperfect beings) speculation of scientifically retarded shepherds (also imperfect beings) posing as the word of a perfect being who is allegedly the root cause of everything we experience today.


----------



## MrPlayerismus (Jan 2, 2012)

I always take everything with a big amount of grains of salt,especially science.Science is the only thing that seems almost perfect,whereas humans are not.For example,the mathematics made by imperfect beings is quite perfect.That is what I admire about science,as well as the other technological advancements which a lot of people nowadays seem to enjoy.


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

Life after death is a contradiction. If there's life, there wasn't death. And if it was death, can't be life. Death is the absence of life.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I'm reminded of a discussion between Spock and McCoy in Star Trek IV:

McCoy: C'mon, Spock, it's me, McCoy. You really have gone where no man's gone before. Can't you tell me what it felt like?

Spock: It would be impossible to discuss the subject without a common frame-of-reference.

McCoy: You mean I have to die to discuss your insights on death?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Rasa said:


> It's those that come up with the claim that something is that have to prove it, not vice-versa.


Not being a prophet, missionary, or any other of those folks, I feel no need to prove the truth any spiritual experience.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> It isn't clear to me why "we are wise to live our lives as though nothing awaits us once we expire" is wise. It _is_ reasonably clear that "precise descriptions of an afterlife" should be salted before consumption.


Because, as I hinted at elsewhere (maybe in my other thread), there are a thousand contradictory after-lives that we could imagine, and we would live lives of inner conflict if we hoped to live by any rules that would allow us access to as many of those speculative after-lives as possible. If the 'true' after life instead does not require that we live by rules, then it follows that knowledge of their existence does not matter to our conduct. As someone else said, what is more important is the impact we have on this world.

I think we also need to consider what people actually mean by the word "soul". I think it's fairly obvious that the concept of a soul arises from our experience of consciousness. Given that, as is often the case, we can give ourselves a better sense of perspective if we consider this attribute in other species. Historically, mankind has adopted a Humans and The Animals approach to consciousness, setting us apart as intrinsically distinct. However, as science progresses, we increasingly finding that consciousness exists on a spectrum. Some animals share our cognitive traits more than others; some of our cognitive traits are closer to our primate brethren's than we might at first guess; and our own consciousnesses may be feeble compared to other life-forms possible with the current laws of physics.

So it begs the question: which animals get an after life and why?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> [...]
> So it begs the question: which animals get an after life and why?


Part of the question I beg (the answer to) is: why do you care?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Part of the question I beg (the answer to) is: why do you care?


I don't care. I'm saying that anyone who bases their notion of the after-life on consciousness must answer that question to be coherent.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

After I die I want to expierience what it's like to not be alive. Then I want to turn into a poltergeist and torment all members on this website who like Elgar. :devil:


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> After I die I want to expierience what it's like to not be alive. Then I want to turn into a poltergeist and torment all members on this website who like Elgar. :devil:


With any luck at all I will die before you do, and be spared the experience.

[ Note: this is my post number 2222. I think I read that such a sequence is lucky in southeastern Asia. Too bad that ain't where I am.]


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Hilltroll, your bold and italics were obviously a mean-spirited expression of glee at what you imagined was a contradiction in Polednice's worldview. That was what you meant by "humor." I have looked for alternative interpretations and there are, frankly, none. 

On the philosophical front, you haven't addressed the key point either: that probably no one with a strict understanding of the scientific method would claim to base all of their beliefs solely on it. So there is actually nothing to get excited about if Polednice expresses a belief that cannot be proven scientifically. In fact, his responses to you have been philosophical rather than scientific. So what does it matter that he's using philosophy rather than science?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

science said:


> Hilltroll, your bold and italics were obviously a mean-spirited expression of glee at what you imagined was a contradiction in Polednice's worldview. That was what you meant by "humor." I have looked for alternative interpretations and there are, frankly, none.
> 
> On the philosophical front, you haven't addressed the key point either: that probably no one with a strict understanding of the scientific method would claim to base all of their beliefs solely on it. So there is actually nothing to get excited about if Polednice expresses a belief that cannot be proven scientifically. In fact, his responses to you have been philosophical rather than scientific. So what does it matter that he's using philosophy rather than science?


An interesting thing to note:

Why are science and philosophy seen as mutually exclusive? The scientific method, and the idea of empiricism, is especially subject to epistemic logic, propositional logic, and existentialism. You'd think that if scientists knew their philosophy better, Mlodinov and Hawkings wouldn't have engaged in crappy metaphysics after they decided to pretend that zero is a real number you can use in physics.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

It's pretty much like receiving general anaesthesia, where you get gassed and then wake up a few hours later to find that despite your disbelief that any time has passed, the world has in fact continued on just fine in your absence. Only you never wake up.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> An interesting thing to note:
> 
> *Why are science and philosophy seen as mutually exclusive? The scientific method, and the idea of empiricism, is especially subject to epistemic logic, propositional logic, and existentialism.* You'd think that if scientists knew their philosophy better, Mlodinov and Hawkings wouldn't have engaged in crappy metaphysics after they decided to pretend that zero is a real number you can use in physics.


I don't understand the comment about zero, so I'm only responding to the part in bold.

I'm not sure about existentialism, but science definitely _uses_ logic in the strict sense (math=logic).

Logic in the loose sense, merely reasoning, obviously goes beyond what science (intersubjective empiricism) can. From that point on it's fair to call it philosophy but not science.

Occam's razor is at the heart of this. Essentially Polednice doesn't believe in life after death because of Occam's razor. Hilltroll's point amounts to: applying Occam's razor to the question of life after death amounts to philosophy rather than science. So, ha ha, Polednice believes something that is not purely scientific.

Hilltroll is correct that Occam's razor, strictly speaking, is not a scientific principle. It can't be defended or refuted by any experiments. Instead it is an intuition, a building block for more elaborate philosophical constructions, including science. Science assumes Occam's razor the way it assumes algebra. Scientists discard hypotheses for which they have no need: strictly speaking, that is a philosophical rather than a scientific action.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> Hilltroll, your bold and italics were obviously a mean-spirited expression of glee at what you imagined was a contradiction in Polednice's worldview. That was what you meant by "humor." I have looked for alternative interpretations and there are, frankly, none.
> 
> On the philosophical front, you haven't addressed the key point either: that probably no one with a strict understanding of the scientific method would claim to base all of their beliefs solely on it. So there is actually nothing to get excited about if Polednice expresses a belief that cannot be proven scientifically. In fact, his responses to you have been philosophical rather than scientific. So what does it matter that he's using philosophy rather than science?


Thanks for the revealing post. The first paragraph illuminates your lack of humor, so I was right all along. Humor cannot be _explained_; it must be recognized. The 'talent' is an ancient one, likely pre-Homo sapiens; maybe you are just highly evolved, so have discarded that irrational appendage. I will point out that 'mean-spirited' is not a humanist trait, not expecting that to make sense to you.

Regarding your second paragraph, I agree with your thoughts, even your (common) misuse of 'certainty'. (Occam's Razor does not provide certainty, philosophically or otherwise. The entire paragraph would not have been written had you a functioning sense of humor.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Thanks for the revealing post. The first paragraph illuminates your lack of humor, so I was right all along. Humor cannot be _explained_; it must be recognized. The 'talent' is an ancient one, likely pre-Homo sapiens; maybe you are just highly evolved, so have discarded that irrational appendage. I will point out that 'mean-spirited' is not a humanist trait, not expecting that to make sense to you.
> 
> Regarding your second paragraph, I agree with your thoughts, even your (common) misuse of 'certainty'. (Occam's Razor does not provide certainty, philosophically or otherwise. The entire paragraph would not have been written had you a functioning sense of humor.


What about "certainty?"


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Humor cannot be _explained_; it must be recognized.


What can be recognised can be explained in terms of the unspoken cognitive concepts we use in the first instance to aid _re_cognition.


----------



## Guest (Jan 19, 2012)

As to the original question - what happens after death - I put this question to an expert - my five-year-old son who has had no religious indoctrination. He told me that after we die we go to live new lives on other planets. 

Out of the mouth of babes. I told him that's as good a guess as any.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> What about "certainty?"


Based on what little I have read by the big-deal philosophers, certainty can't _philosophically_ be closely approached - too much disagreement among them, on a lot of subjects. Regarding Occam's Razor - it is a device for selecting the best odds; certainty is not involved

Regarding _Poley_'s use of the term, there was nothing wrong with it - except that it gave me the impetus for using hyperbole in an obviously overblown response. Explaining humor is (I'm repeating myself) unprofitable, but the concept there is similar to Beethoven's in his 'Rage Over a Lost Penny'.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> What can be recognised can be explained in terms of the unspoken cognitive concepts we use in the first instance to aid _re_cognition.


I'm not at all sure you are right, _Poley_. Near as I can tell, recognizing _unsophisticated_ humor is a _pre_-cognitive process. Puns and other 'plays on words' are explainable, yes, though the explanation is usually painful.

[I will take this opportunity to state that my analysis of the state of _science_'s funnybone is not meant as an insult. In my career I have worked for two men who were notably shortchanged in that area. I respected both of them, and they at least tolerated me. The fact that I worked for them and not vice versa could indicate... something.]


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I'm not at all sure you are right, _Poley_. Near as I can tell, recognizing _unsophisticated_ humor is a _pre_-cognitive process. Puns and other 'plays on words' are explainable, yes, though the explanation is usually painful.
> 
> [I will take this opportunity to state that my analysis of the state of _science_'s funnybone is not meant as an insult. In my career I have worked for two men who were notably shortchanged in that area. I respected both of them, and they at least tolerated me. The fact that I worked for them and not vice versa could indicate... something.]


I don't think the problem is that _science_ has a malformed funny bone, but that your funny bone is particularly sharp and splintery.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I don't think the problem is that _science_ has a malformed funny bone, but that your funny bone is particularly sharp and splintery.


_Argh_. I've been resisting that notion for a long time... but recently I have found supporting evidence in a neuroscience article. It seems that links between regions of the brain that are used during the brain's development, and nearly always removed when their purpose has been fulfilled... occasionally stay in place. The result is a heightening of what is termed _metaphor_. It causes the victim to 'see' relationships that do not really exist. I'm not sure that I'm one of those people, or that it explains anything about my funny bone... but dammit, I sense a connection...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Based on what little I have read by the big-deal philosophers, certainty can't _philosophically_ be closely approached - too much disagreement among them, on a lot of subjects. Regarding Occam's Razor - it is a device for selecting the best odds; certainty is not involved
> 
> Regarding _Poley_'s use of the term, there was nothing wrong with it - except that it gave me the impetus for using hyperbole in an obviously overblown response. Explaining humor is (I'm repeating myself) unprofitable, but the concept there is similar to Beethoven's in his 'Rage Over a Lost Penny'.


You said that I used the term wrongly. Can you show me my mistake and give an example of doing it correctly?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

As for humor, have you really never seen a funny post from me?

But it's another thing to use humor as an excuse for being a jerk, though of course people do it all the time.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> As for humor, have you really never seen a funny post from me?
> 
> But it's another thing to use humor as an excuse for being a jerk, though of course people do it all the time.


Be that as it may be, it's _my_ excuse. And as one, I see no reason to enlighten you regarding 'certainty'. You're on your own, dude.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Be that as it may be, it's _my_ excuse. And as one, I see no reason to enlighten you regarding 'certainty'. You're on your own, dude.


That's fine. I re-read all my posts in this thread and couldn't find me using the word.


----------

