(To be honest though if the original OP hadn't garnered a few decent responses, I would have just deleted it myself.)

It was me. It's possible I was a little hasty in moving it, because I didn't really look at the responses, basing my decision mainly on the OP. But still, I don't think it's a philosophical question so I'm not too regretful about my decision.

@Noble Dust

Fair call. @Noble Dust Everyone involved in the conversation knows where it is. I don't see a big problem.

If by this you mean most of the other discussions I've started have been on the lounge that doesn't seem to be a legitimate enough reason to move something. I have really enjoyed people really diving into the question I posed and I feel like questions relating to the afterlife and death are a religious philosophical topic, not a random dicussion.

@Baden

I overreacted, sorry. Disagree, but apologies for getting carried away there.

I'll debate anyone who wants to, on the subject of whether there is evidence that consciousness survives death. I'll debate them formally in the debate thread with a moderator.

:up:

Might as well throw the something from nothing thread into the Lounge also to be consistent.

I say turn the whole place into a lounge. Cigarettes, beers, a jukebox, live music on the weekends; casual philosophical conversations that sometimes explode into deep revelations...

I feel like even within the same religions there is a large discrepancy between peoples views on afterlife and I'd love to hear some thoughts. — TheDarkElf

If you retain sufficient consciousness that you no longer need a body to support it, and can learn to see without eyes, and to communicate via telepathy, you may have the option to remain in your "soul-level" disincorporated state while learning enough to be of useful service.

Otherwise, whatever passes in you for consciousness will gradually fade, for lack of suitable support mechanisms, whereupon you may be reincorporated in another body to try again. Or, you may be left in a not-self-aware state (a.k.a. death) indefinitely.

I hope that whichever state we end up in is a function of choices and actions from our life experience, but suspect that much of our fate is randomly determined.

How long could one remain in this 'soul state' for? And it sounds like you believe fate to be set out before us?

That would depend upon the particular "soul state," would it not? But whatever state one finds oneself in, or betwixt, an agreed-upon definition of time is a necessary precursor to any sensible answer to your question.

Personally, I do not believe that time exists as a physical dimension, although it is certainly an oft-useful mathematical tool. I've solved many practical physics problems involving "t" or its derivatives, because they can be interpreted in terms of our actual experiences and measurement methods.

You might consider an alternative question-- what physical events must transpire in order for a "soul" to change its state of consciousness?

I'll debate anyone who wants to, on the subject of whether there is evidence that consciousness survives death. I'll debate them formally in the debate thread with a moderator. — Sam26

Evidence for independent consciousness abounds, but the history of honest investigation indicates that evidence is unimportant in the absence of a reasonable and verifiable paradigm into which the evidence fits. Thomas Kuhn explains this in fine philosophical detail, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

For example, despite numerous reports of ball lightening and its seemingly inexplicable behavior, the sightings were dismissed as the delusions of incompetent or lying observers-- until physicists investigating nuclear fusion possibilities developed mathematical theories describing plasmas. Their theories clearly applied to ball lightening. Suddenly, people who reported ball lightening were not written off.

I would naturally enjoy debating competent interlocutors on the possibility of a useful consciousness paradigm, but that is not possible on this forum without the exclusion of unqualified interference.

For example, despite numerous reports of ball lightening and its seemingly inexplicable behavior, the sightings were dismissed as the delusions of incompetent or lying observers-- until physicists investigating nuclear fusion possibilities developed mathematical theories describing plasmas. Their theories clearly applied to ball lightening. Suddenly, people who reported ball lightening were not written off. — Greylorn Ell

The problem seems to be, as I've mentioned before in other threads, is that people seem to think that unless science proves X, then we can't know X. My claim is based on knowledge acquired in other ways. For example, I don't need science to tell me that the orange juice I drank this morning is sweet, I've tasted it, or that there is an oak tree in my back yard, I've seen it. And there are other ways that we come to have knowledge, for instance, much of what we know is based on testimonial evidence. While it is true that testimonial evidence can be very unreliable, it can also be very strong. I've put forth my argument in the thread https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body/p18

If you retain sufficient consciousness that you no longer need a body to support it ... — Greylorn Ell

"Retain" how - without a body (i.e. CNS which has irreversibly decomposed)?

How do you/we even conceptualize a "consciousness"-threshold that's indicative of a "sufficient" level?

... and can learn to see without eyes, and ...

... like triangles without sides? or walking without legs? or breathing air without lungs? or ???

... to communicate via telepathy ...

Any corroborable public evidence you can cite that indicates that "telepathy" is a thing and not just ... woo?

... you may have the option to remain in your "soul-level" disincorporated state while learning enough to be of useful service.

If "you" are dead, then "you" and "your" and "options" cease (i.e. don't obtain).

Evidence for independent consciousness abounds, but — Greylorn Ell

Great googly moogly! :scream: Do tell: produce, or point to this, (more-than-anecdotal) "evidence".

The problem seems to be, as I've mentioned before in other threads, is that people seem to think that unless science proves X, then we can't know X. My claim is based on knowledge acquired in other ways. For example, I don't need science to tell me that the orange juice I drank this morning is sweet, I've tasted it, or that there is an oak tree in my back yard, I've seen it. And there are other ways that we come to have knowledge, for instance, much of what we know is based on testimonial evidence. While it is true that testimonial evidence can be very unreliable, it can also be very strong. I've put forth my argument in the thread https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body/p18 — Sam26

Sam,
Evidently I've failed, once again, to competently express the concept I tried to convey. Unfortunately, I do not know of a better explanation. Should you choose to reread what I said and figure out what I meant about the relationship between proofs and paradigms, let's see if we might have a constructive discussion. T. Kuhn would provide a more definitive, and certainly more credible explanation of such concepts. --GL

I have a secular take on the notion of an afterlife which happily bends the rules of its accepted meaning.

Every action a person takes in their life irreversibly changes the informational configuration of the universe with consequences which are presumed to have a permanent physical effect until the end of time. The physical link is due to the way information can only change from one state to another at the cost of some finite quantity of energy. A most exaggerated example is the way we still discuss the works of dead philosophers; from the perspective of the infosphere they're neither prelife nor afterlife. This certainly also applies to ordinary people but is much harder to illustrate. Surreal but not supernatural.

By the above account an afterlife can be demythologized into a intergenerational reservoir of information. If this is begging the question, it may suit our purposes to merely define information as a medium of exchange for now, which, at least for most of us, is constantly demonstrated by digital technology.