Either you will die, or not. The implications either way are profound. Death is obviously one of the biggest issues in all cultures and our understanding of it affects our understanding of life itself.
It seems too easy for some religious people to just choose to claim to believe in 'eternal salvation' or at least an eventual chance to reunite with lost loved ones etc. as if it solves the problem of loss, grief, despair etc. I'm suggesting (more as a fun thought experiment than anything we're likely to make serious progress on!) that to discover with certainty that the end of this physical life does not mean the end of our consciousness may not actually justify any ideas those who believe in a soul may have. That they would still be in the same philosophical boat as those who reject the idea of a continuation after physical death.

To elaborate further: religion obviously plays a huge part in shaping our world. Millions have died for religion, whole cultures are shaped by its premises. Proof of an afterlife would for many be 'proof'' of some of their religion's key teachings (imagine the potential aftermath of zealotry which would follow!) But actually, it would be no proof at all (or very insignificant)

I have no problem entertaining it. I enjoy entertaing all sorts of weird and wonderful ideas. But i dont choose to halt my thinking and claim to absolitely believe any of them. My point is about those who do entertain such ideas to the point of claiming to believe them. The situation I described could - would - be used by certain people as proof of their belief system and therefore justification by extension of everything else connected to that belief system. I understand the philosophical approach you are taking (It's how I like to do things) but in the case I describe it would largely be those without a philosophical approach (the blindly devout, the religious people who were raised in their faith and never learned to question, m etc) who would run with the information and make waves for better or worse.
If such a 'proof' came to light (ok, not absolute proof of everything but, say, unquestionable evidence that a dead person was still around as some sort of ghost or something) you and I and the others in this forum would not go crazy and leap to conclusions, but there would be millions or billions who would. They are the ones who would have the greatest impact on the future of the world......

most are kind of cool about it

@Πετροκότσυφας
Really? Religion/faith doesn't cause too many problems then?

I just can't stand the optimistic messages on his tea towels when he hangs out the washing. And he plays his hymns too loud.

Lol! My wife doesn't let me play anything that heavy haha!

ultimately there would be no escape from death. — Oliver Purvis

Since all our experience, knowledge, hopes, fears, personality and memories are demonstrably
and uniquely coded as neural structure, any 'afterlife' would necessarily be meaningless unless we could take our brains with us.

Any thoughts? — Oliver Purvis

I don't know how to respond. Speaking for myself, as of late I find death will be a relief so your post seems to lose its meaning to me. But, in the past I have been afraid of death and how it rudely snatches people from their happy existences. Perhaps I can respond from that perspective.

Death can be handled in two ways.

1. Vie against it and look for a way to escape it. Most religions are about that and even science (medicine) is, unabashedly, about living longer. Science seems to be getting closer and closer to understanding, if you will, the mechanics of death and immortality and from this perspective, eternal life doesn't seem that far-fetched an idea. I don't think I'll be around to see it but science seems up to the task.

2. Accept death as a truth that can't be denied. Instead of trying to fight it, use it. Realize the impermanence of life and avoid the suffering that's tagged to clinging to life. This is a Buddhist outlook.

Which one do you prefer? Why?

your argument is correct, but only if it is assumed that 'physical time' is metaphysically independent of the stream of consciousness. Only under this assumption does it make sense to speak of time continuing without consciousness.

On the other hand a Presentist who thinks that consciousness is metaphysically identical to 'the present' will think of 'physical time' as being conceptually reducible to a public convention of temporal signification within the present, and hence will interpret the meaning of 'the afterlife' very differently, in an exact manner that depends on how they understand the conceptual relationship of the present to observed change.

Having already collapsed the distinction between 'the present' and consciousness, if the Presentist then insists on collapsing the conceptual distinction between 'the present' and currently observed change, then they might say that talk of a non-changing present is nonsensical, and hence conclude that the after-life is a tautological truth, indeed a trivial fact that is logically necessary.

On the other hand, if the Presentist believes that 'the present' and 'current change' are two separate things, then they might think of the 'after-life' as a meaningful null-hypothesis which states that a non-changing present is possible but won't happen.

Seems like there's a neural correlate for all mental events, but this was meant as a 'what if?' Just a bit of fun really

I like both approaches! The first, for the optimism and thrill of speculation, the second for a more pragmatic approach to daily existence.

That's rather debatable.

That we need our brains to make us who we are is not debatable.
If you want I can prove this to you in a few minutes.
Come on over and take the blunt spoon challenge.

I can make you disappear bit by bit with a spoon in your brain. I can ever do it in such a way that you will know that you are loosing parts of yourself, until there is so little left of you that you don't even know what you are let alone who you are.

↪charleton Seems like there's a neural correlate for all mental events, but this was meant as a 'what if?' Just a bit of fun really — Oliver Purvis

What if things were not as they actually are. What if everything we know about what we are, about life, about the very nature of life is not true.
How can you even talk about a 'next stage' of consciousness if you do not have the equipment to have any consciousness at all?
Even hypotheticals have to have a basis.

Consider the life-and-death cycle no different from the awake-sleep cycle except for a certain loss of personal memory (some is retained in the form of inherited characteristics and skills). Mind (life) is never destroyed. It just keeps evolving. It is the Universe.

Is that really your proof? *slow clap*

Since all our experience, knowledge, hopes, fears, personality and memories are demonstrably
and uniquely coded as neural structure, any 'afterlife' would necessarily be meaningless unless we could take our brains with us. — charleton

If there is an afterlife, presumably there is a God. I think God could probably figure out how to take the mind and soul without the brain.

That we need our brains to make us who we are is not debatable. — charleton

Of course it's debatable. Everything is. There are many people who disagree with your statement.

How can you even talk about a 'next stage' of consciousness if you do not have the equipment to have any consciousness at all?
Even hypotheticals have to have a basis. — charleton

You keep telling people what they are and aren't allowed to think or talk about.

How can you even talk about a 'next stage' of consciousness if you do not have the equipment to have any consciousness at all?
Even hypotheticals have to have a basis. — charleton

Good point.

Consciousness is a mind-body function. For this hypothetical to have a basis:
1) Consciousness also has to be a function of something other than mind and body.
2) Mind must persist independently of body (as others have noted).
3) Something other than consciousness persists after death (e.g., spirit).

Don't ask me what spirit is; I have no idea.

Come on down and take the challenge!!!
No?? Why not?
You are nothing more than your physicality.

Indeed.

Even if there was a 'spirit' whatever that is, it would not have a personality, since you demonstrably need a brain for that; it would have no memory; no learning; no identity.

If there is an afterlife, presumably there is a God. I think God could probably figure out how to take the mind and soul without the brain. — T Clark

If god can make a personality and an identity without a brain, then what the fuck is the brain for?
If you want to know god by consulting the book of nature you have to take account of natural things.

Even if there was a 'spirit' whatever that is, it would not have a personality, since you demonstrably need a brain for that; it would have no memory; no learning; no identity. — charleton

If brain anatomy has been injured, or brain physiology is not functioning normally, mind condition and/or function will be abnormal, or lost. That is a causal relationship. However, the fact of neuroplasticity provides sufficient reason to reject epiphenomenalism. In other words, body and mind have mutual effects.

Also, it is not known whether neurophysiological activity causes mental conditions and functions, or mental conditions and functions cause neurophysiological activity.

So, personality, memory, learning, and identity are psychological attributes which can only be logically ascribed to a psychophysical organism. Ascribing them to a brain is mereological confusion.

Whether or not some of these attributes are related to spirit; I don't know, do you?

1) That's a straw man, I'm not claiming my mind is immune to what happens to my brain or that it's state is the same thing as it's capability to funcrion as a part of the physical world.
2) I care about my mind's effect on and the understanding of the physical world.
3) Neither my beliefs or my confidence in them is an argument for whether I'm right or wrong.

In other words, body and mind have mutual effects. — Galuchat

This is hopeless idle speculation. You are imposing a false duality that is inherently false.

I can change your personality. I can make it so you forget your childhood. I can eve use a spoon to make you incapable of recognising your own mother, children and Adolf Hitler.

So, personality, memory, learning, and identity are psychological attributes which can only be logically ascribed to a psychophysical organism. Ascribing them to a brain is mereological confusion. — Galuchat

Your silly comment is demonstrably false.

Can you cite scientific research which establishes epiphenomenalism as fact? If not, all you have is belief.

I've not made any such cliam.

Misquote? or xmas drunkenness?

I've not made any such cliam.
Misquote? or xmas drunkenness? — charleton

Your comments indicate a physicalist position. Given that, how does your notion of mind-body interaction differ from epiphenomenalism?

As an aside, this seems to be a common style of argument on these forums: if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit, and failing that: engage in ad hominem. Sweet.

ALL the evidence suggests that mind is inextricably linked to neural matter. If you screw around with that you screw around with everything that makes us persons with identity and memories.
And the more we learn about the brain, the more we can attribute certain parts of the brain certain functions.
There is no distinction of any value on this topic between mind and brain. Such dualism is the result of old mythical and lexical differences between out of date ideas psyche and soma.
Nothing departs upon death. Every thing just rots.
The evidence is overwhelming that this is true; from accidental damage; use and abuse of drugs; mental illnesses; mental states of all kinds.
In Alzheimers you can be witness to the gradual disappearance of a person before your eyes.
Innumerable cases of brain injury that have left people with completely changed personalities, lost memories and the loss of key abilities.
Death is the complete loss of the brain; all memories, all personality traits, all learning, identity.
You are just kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

Apologies if this has already been brought up, but you're assuming that an afterlife would have time, which isn't necessarily a given. Unless we're speaking of something like reincarnation, where your soul or consciousness just transfers to a new physical body, it doesn't make sense to talk about a non-physical realm having time. Time is nothing more than a relationship between physical objects. No physical objects = no time. So if we're talking about an immaterial soul or mind or consciousness existing in an immaterial dimension, there would be no time. Only existence.