I am just interested to know why you think that consciousness ceases completely at death. Is this based on the premise that mind is totally dependent on the brain? — Jack Cummins

As much as I'd like to think that consciousness is seperare and possibly eternal, it's still what we call somewhat supernatural. There's still no proof of it.

However, that also doesn't mean that there's no such thing either. It might be one of the major forces in nature and as a form of energy(?) it too cannot be destroyed.

They had less intellectual debris to face. So their minds made up the missing stuff in the cracks of knowledge, and since the majority of creation thus became the product of their imagination, they saw the world more clearly. Everyone is very clear about the product of their imagination. — god must be atheist

In simplicity one gains clarity. Complexity clouds the obvious. A idea needs only one sentence. The Internet is a manifestation of junk debris. Better to look at a pond.

I am glad that while you do not actually believe in life after death you do not claim such a definitive certainty as many others do. Some of those who are so certain of their truth that death is an absolute end seem to verge onto being defensive.

At death identities change, but nothing happens to consciousness.

When you say that identities change, but nothing happens to consciousness,' are you saying that it continues to exist?

Yes

That's interesting because most of the people in this debate are arguing against consciousness existing. Perhaps you could explain your view in a bit more detail as it may offer a new angle.

I used to be so sure before but then the truth is I'm not 100% certain and so I can't say that some unobserved phenomena don't exist for sure.

95% of the universe is basically unknown after all.

Sure, I'll try.

First I just want to question the assumption that consciousness ends at death. It's an understandable assumption, because we also assume that consciousness disappears when we, say, take a general anaesthetic or get knocked out with a punch. It seems to me possible that it is not consciousness that it affected, but identity. If we define ourselves a la Hume, as a bundle of memories, perceptions and thoughts etc, bundled together in an integrated functioning whole, it seems to me that that is exactly the kind of thing that is fairly fragile and easily disrupted, say, with a blow to the head. We stop functioning as one thing. Our singular identity is lost. And death is an even more emphatic loss of coherent function than being knocked out, so a fortiori, whatever we think happens when we get knocked out, also happens at death, just in a more permanent way. I'm a panspychist for separate reasons (which I won't rehearse now), so I think there is still consciousness there, as consciousness is a basic property of all matter/energy/substance/action/function or whatever concept you want to take as most fundamental.

So, how do we choose between these possibilities? What's lost? Identity or consciousness? We can use language as a guide: "I lost consciousness when I got hit on the head." That probably is the default position we are educated into by habit and language. We could rephrase this in terms of loss of the humean self: "I got hit on the head and could no longer think, forgot everything, had no perceptions. Then when I came around these things returned." It seems to me to describe a loss of identity. To pick up 180s metaphor, the tune the orchestra plays is identity, not consciousness.

I'll stop there as it's a bit late for me. I can go on some more another time if you want.

Whatever experience one might one want to have there is this other thing.It does not care about you as a project of nurture.
So, how does one frame that element? It is connected your choices. But you don't own them.
Getting small like Socrates.

That's a mathematical equivalency to other physical attributes rather than a metaphysical description (the difference is we have a way to explain mass as a property of objects, something in addition to m=e/c^2, we’re more hard pressed when asked about energy) Now it may be that metaphysical description is impossible, Don Koks in his recent book suggested the question of "what energy is" may be meaningless if energy is a quantity that can't be expressed in terms of anything else. Maybe, but I personally think it's giving up early, same for particles even if we conclude they're "fundamental". I see worth looking into descriptions in relational terms if not by breaking them into further components, meshes well with process metaphysics.

Agreed that it's not separate from spacetime, we know energy isn't conserved in general relativity over very long distances.

I have read your comment and the aspect of your thinking which relates to my initial idea of my thread is whole the process of consciousness after death. I think that a lot of readers response to the post have missed this subtle point, or perhaps I did not emphasise it enough. I was not just asking about the issue of immortality alone but about the actual processes of consciousness which are likely to occur.

My original discussion of near death experiences fits into this area, as a possible state of deep dreaming. Of course, we have no reason to think that everyone will have near death experiences at death, because all we have to go upon is those who did not die ultimately. But as a hint, of the possibility of such dream states we can indeed wonder about the questions of identity at death.
Would it be loss of the individual identity, as conveyed in the Hindu notion of Brahman(the person) merging into Atman(God consciousness), or perhaps now I am expressing myself too much in the language of the mystics.

But I am interested in what the person will encounter at death, and will it be the dissolution of identity as we know it? Am I wondering about the remnants of consciousness while lying buried in a coffin? I probably am, and I would also ask whether the experience of being buried would be different from that of cremation in terms of dissolution of consciousness and identity. I once read an argument in theosophy that aspects of the desire aspects of subtle bodies can be broken down more easily in cremations.

I am not sure if both you and I are talking in the same frame of reference and, as far as I know,I am not a panpsychist. But I am interested in the process of death, and do also take an interest in the whole burial process which took place in Egyptian culture in which death was seen as a journey.

Of course, I realise that we are in a scientific age and the whole notion of afterlife speculation may be seen as part of our struggle to cope with the idea of death as our egoic wishes may be about wanting to live forever. But, even those who dismiss the idea of immortality totally, could consider the end processes of life, or perhaps they do not see it as worth thinking about at all.

Generally speaking, I would query your view as to whether we can determine getting what we want. I would be drawing upon the idea of the law of attraction as expressed by Esther and Jeremy Hicks.

However, I presume you are talking about life after death in the point you are making. In this sense, I would say in agreement that we cannot say that it will happen because we would like it. It either happens or not and I think that some people may believe in it because it appeals to them.

I am not even sure that I do want to live beyond death, because living this one life is hard enough. But, ultimately I see the question of life after death as being beyond the issue of personal preference and one about finding truth.

E=mc^2 ... Anyway, the question is incoherent, or is begged, since any "where" (or when) - spacetime - is inseparable from "matter ... energy". To be is to "vibrate, move, change" à la dao. — 180 Proof

:rofl: excuse, please. Youtube has many more interesting explanations and I like this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn4J8RcMGrM

↪Athena What IS energy. Math and physics only deals with equivalencies (=). They can never say what it IS. Only WE can say who we ARE. — MondoR

The hard problem of matter calls for non-structural properties, and consciousness is the one phenomenon we know that might meet this need. Consciousness is full of qualitative properties, from the redness of red and the discomfort of hunger to the phenomenology of thought. Such experiences, or “qualia,” may have internal structure, but there is more to them than structure. We know something about what conscious experiences are like in and of themselves, not just how they function and relate to other properties.
http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/is-matter-conscious — Nautilus

:lol:

In simplicity one gains clarity. Complexity clouds the obvious. A idea needs only one sentence. The Internet is a manifestation of junk debris. Better to look at a pond. — MondoR

Maybe. I was saying something completely different, though. You are saying something completely different from what I was saying. The exchange of ideas. This is what it's all about.

Complexity clouds the obvious. — MondoR

Very true. Sometimes the obvious is the truth, and it's not complex also sometimes. Some other times the truth is complex, and not obvious. In those times simplicity clouds the well-thought out.

I say potato, you say potato. We say what we say without any effect of disproving the other, just mentioning extreme cases that are fully compatible. With each other, if you seek truth and examine it case-by-case.

In one sense, finding out what is the truth is to pass and see what happens or not. However, if the truth is supposed to relate to our responses while we live, those expectations are not just preferences but frames for our decisions and experience. As a result, they lead to different experiences of what is needed or not. An operating manual for ethical decisions.

It is difficult to approach the question because any view that connects life and death is not replaceable by some principle that keeps them separate. If it was that easy, we would just do that.

Edit to add:

As an example, consider Nietzsche presenting the idea of Eternal Recurrence as the the antithesis to the Christian view that there are two worlds we inhabit at the same time. If there is only one world, then we should adjust our expectations. That Nietzsche still uses the eternal reference is odd.

What is he trying to say?

I just noticed that you made an addition to the post which you wrote, about Nietzsche's idea of the eternal recurrence. You say that it is important to note that he formed his idea as an alternative perspective to the Christian perspective on life being in two worlds. I think that you probably mean heaven and hell.

This has just left me wondering what people think about the issue of life after death in the more expensive views opened up by physics. I am not saying it necessarily means that there is life after death but simply that we are no longer living in the Newtonian- Cartesian paradigm in which humanist and atheist views emerged. I am just wondering what the implications of quantum physics, possible worlds and other new ideas throws up for the question of consciousness at death.

I was thinking more along the lines of the separation of this world or της κόσμος from the kingdom of heaven as depicted by St. Paul, or the difference between the City of God and the City of Men as described by St. Augustine. The Christian point of view tends toward seeing present choices in this life as directly involved in immortality as the desired outcome.

But, as a professor I had long ago pointed out, the text says "eternal life" not life after death. Not tasting death only makes sense as a way of life. Nobody can prove the future. Accepting that certain conditions apply is either a discovery or an assumption. Our results will vary. The anticipation is the central focus.

All of that is a different matter from trying to understand consciousness as a phenomenon or phenomena. But the problem does not come from being stuck in one worldview or another. We might need some more philosophy. Spinoza noted that we use frames of reference that a Creator would not.

As for the Nietzsche mention, I was interested in the idea of him being motivated to find the opposite pole of Christianity. He employed a certain version of Eternity to collapse the Two World idea.

It goes into a new body the next time the universe branches off.

Death isn't unconsciousness because that is part of life i.e. sleep.

Hamlet was barking up the wrong tree.

I agree that we need to wake up from the everyday unconsciousness of daily life, as Guirdjieff suggested, rather than even begin to worry about what happens when we die.

Many, many people have had (near death experiences)
and many have had (hallucinations that include sensory experiences).
The reason there isn't more exposure of near death experiences is fear of suicide or giving up.
The actual experience is beautiful and motivating, however it can not be explained because we
are so dependent on our senses.
It has been said that our most enlightened state is the moment of birth,
before we become dependent on our senses.

The whole area of near death experiences is fascinating. It is unclear what they represent. I would say that I have some borderline sleep experiences, including a profound one at age 16. I was drifting into sleep and was aware of entering what appeared to be like a cathedral dome. There was a throne, and an orb, representing God. I could see angels on one side, and devils on the other. A voice spoke from the light(God), saying,
'You will decide in your own heart on which side of the altar you stand.'

I blinked my eyes open, but startled by it. I have puzzled over it, and did, wonder if it was a stark choice between heaven and hell. This worried me terribley because at that time I had not even begun to question the basics of my Catholic upbringing. Over time, I came to view the message as meaning that I had to determine my own choices regarding rather than have others tell me what to do to reach heaven and avoid hell.

But the reason I disclose it here, is that I was not dying at the time, but it was like a near-death experience and still makes me curious about the whole nature of near death experiences and what exactly they represent.

What happens to consciousness when we die? It starts all over again, same life for ever and ever - like playing an movie over and over and over again(!) You die and immediately from the perspective of your individual mind you'll get reborn into the same life as now and as you always have lived. From our individuated perspective there's really nothing more to it; - Ens realissimum - The infinite - or The Universe - is eternal and the same are all its finite-infinite individuations such as you and I...

The Egyptian trinity is more like we are spiritual beings having a human experience. One part dies with the body, one part goes on to be judged and may entire the good life or not, and always the third part returns to the source. — Athena

I think the ancient peoples had a better qualitative experience of death since they lived in closer-knit communities and there was just more death around them all the time. We modern people never even have to slaughter our own animals to get meat. If we live without being alienated form each other, we start to see the universality of being alive and of being human in relation to other forms of life much more clearly than a person can today in a big house surrounded by material objects that are nonliving.

The notion that "death is when the soul leaves the body never to return" is a phenomenological description (as much as anything else) since the ancients regarded the soul as the animating factor -- in other words the living creature has stopped moving, growing, etc. Treating the "soul" or "spirit" as having any actual existence requires an idealist or dualist worldview since such an object would have been observed by now if it had a material composition.

Even in an idealist framework, I think its safe to say that some aspects of consciousness end with life. Admitting something like eternal intellect or God, if this being has all knowledge, it cannot make a decision, and so would have no active or deliberative consciousness. Similarly, a spirit has no memory or senses, so cannot be aware of its own thoughts or sense anything in the world. Thus, a spirit has no passive or sensational consciousness. So whether or not we join with God when we die, we lose something precious.

Yes, that is the true extent of the question of the possibility of immortality. It depends on belief in a soul, or spirit. It is hard to define these terms exactly.

However, the biggest problem in trying to find evidence seems to come down to the way in which consciousness is dependent on the existence of a brain. Also, it is hard to imagine existence without a body.

Of course, traditional Christian views spoke of the idea of the resurrection of the body, although people the idea of the resurrection body of St Paul was a spiritual body.

In Eastern philosophy the idea of reincarnation is seen to follow, so it does not suggest the idea of existence without a body except in terms of a short period, such as that described in The Tibetan Book of the Dead. Also, some Eastern philosophy implies the idea of initiation, and this suggests an idea of a spiritual body.

So, we are left with the possibility of the existence of a spiritual body. However, it is hard to define the spiritual body. I am sure that many neuroscientists would say that there is no such thing as a spiritual body, and dismissed the notion of spirit altogether. However, perhaps they are mistaken because the animating force has to be present for life as opposed to death to exist. Of course, this ceases to exist, as far as we know, at death. But there is a possibility that on an invisible level some aspect of this spark continues to exist on an invisible level, beyond death.

It does involve one central mystery: what is spirit?

If we live without being alienated form each other, we start to see the universality of being alive and of being human in relation to other forms of life much more clearly than a person can today in a big house surrounded by material objects that are nonliving. — Garth

the animating force has to be present for life — Jack Cummins

It is hard to imagine my computer, books, desk, chair, etc. as animated. Effectively we are living in a dead world when we are separate from nature. I have a very uneasy feeling about this and wonder about the psychological and social impact.
.