After I Die?

[KWED]

I disagree

All the evidence points to consciousness being a function of the physical brain.
Not only that, every attempt to demonstrate that consciousness survives physical death has failed.
So given this, on what basis do you disagree? (Apart from wishful thinking?)

 

[KWED]

Some recent scientific studies, suggest that the consciousness remains active and "alive" after the physical death of the body.
This is a very thrilling study and I recommend you read it if it is really an interest for you.

The study examined 2000 people and was conducted by the NY academy of science.
It demonstrates that most people have none, some or exact recollection of up to two hours after their brain is completely dead. meaning, no brain activity was measured.
The reason two hours is the limit, as we are currently limited to two hours because we don't yet have sufficient technology to go beyond it.
I find it amazing and reinforcing my own belief that our existence is not limited to our physical body.
But it is too soon to determine if indeed there is "life" after death, as the evidence for this is lacking.

But those people were not "dead". They were kept alive by artificial means until their own body was able to take over again.
The important point here is that all the people the study cites were alive to describe their experiences. Once a person has gone beyond that "near death" stage, where resuscitation is no longer possible, then the consciousness is gone - as far as we know.

 

[KWED]

I am not sure I understand the analogy.

Perhaps a better analogy would be computer graphics. They only exist as a product of the hardware (physical brain) and software (electro-chemical activity in the brain).
Change the software and the graphics change.
Turn off the hardware and the graphics disappear.
Something like that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What will happen to me after I die?

As in what will I experience?

What should I expect?

What is the basis for your answer?

I'ld guess pretty much the same thing you experience every night while sleeping but without the potential of dreaming.

 

[KWED]

I disagree

What do you mean by "optimistic"?

 

[The Hammer]

What do you mean by "optimistic"?

There is a no proof either way. So I prefer what brings me Hope and Joy.

 

[Segev Moran]

But those people were not "dead". They were kept alive by artificial means until their own body was able to take over again.
The important point here is that all the people the study cites were alive to describe their experiences. Once a person has gone beyond that "near death" stage, where resuscitation is no longer possible, then the consciousness is gone - as far as we know.

This study was not examining life after death.
It was examining if the consciousness has a dependency on an active brain.
The brains were shut down completely up to two hours.
I don't know enough of all the medical details, but it is a new technology that allows "waking" up people from a complete brain dead or something of that sort.
The issue here, is that even though the brain showed no neurological or electrical signals, it managed to recall those two hours.

 

[Segev Moran]

Perhaps a better analogy would be computer graphics. They only exist as a product of the hardware (physical brain) and software (electro-chemical activity in the brain).
Change the software and the graphics change.
Turn off the hardware and the graphics disappear.
Something like that.

I still don't understand.

An analogy I can think of is this:

You have a brain. Lets call it "code".
This code is constructed as a network of data processing, signals, and patterns. Lets call it AI.

So our "code" is basically "causing" AI.
So far, this scenario goes well with both of your analogies.
But the amazing thing here, is that not only the code generated the AI, the AI also re-writes the code.
Unlike fuel to an engine, or hardware and software (which might match the above, if the software could physically alter the hardware, which will probably happen much sooner than we think).

 

[KWED]

This study was not examining life after death.
It was examining if the consciousness has a dependency on an active brain.
The brains were shut down completely up to two hours.
I don't know enough of all the medical details, but it is a new technology that allows "waking" up people from a complete brain dead or something of that sort.
The issue here, is that even though the brain showed no neurological or electrical signals, it managed to recall those two hours.

My point still stands. The subject was not dead and their body was being sustained.
In most cases, when the brain is "dead" for long enough but the body resuscitated, there is not only no memory of the event, but no brain function at all.

 

[Spirit of Light]

My point still stands. The subject was not dead and their body was being sustained.
In most cases, when the brain is "dead" for long enough but the body resuscitated, there is not only no memory of the event, but no brain function at all.

What if you, yourself experience near death experience, would you deny it was real to you?

It should be no problem that other people believe what they do, even it is only "a belief " or?

 

[KWED]

You have a brain. Lets call it "code".

No. "Code" is an abstract concept. The brain is a physical object.

This code is constructed as a network of data processing, signals, and patterns. Lets call it AI.

AI is just a term for the operation of a particular type of code. It still requires hardware (brain) for it to exist.

So our "code" is basically "causing" AI.

Correct. The physical brain causes the mind.

So far, this scenario goes well with both of your analogies.

So far, yours is just mine but with a vital component mislabeled.

But the amazing thing here, is that not only the code generated the AI, the AI also re-writes the code.
Unlike fuel to an engine, or hardware and software (which might match the above, if the software could physically alter the hardware, which will probably happen much sooner than we think).

How does the mind alter the physical brain?
(The engine/fuel analogy was completely wrong).

 

[KWED]

What if you, yourself experience near death experience, would you deny it was real to you?

I would obviously acknowledge that I had an experience.
However, I would also acknowledge that the most reasonable explanation was that it was a product of my physical brain.
I have had dreams and hallucinations that seems completely real at that time. I certainly do not therefore believe that they actually happened in real life.

It should be no problem that other people believe what they do, even it is only "a belief " or?

Indeed. I completely understand why people believe in such things. However, their belief does not make the thing real.
Or are you claiming that everyones beliefs should be considered to be a reality?

 

[Spirit of Light]

I would obviously acknowledge that I had an experience.
However, I would also acknowledge that the most reasonable explanation was that it was a product of my physical brain.
I have had dreams and hallucinations that seems completely real at that time. I certainly do not therefore believe that they actually happened in real life.

Indeed. I completely understand why people believe in such things. However, their belief does not make the thing real.
Or are you claiming that everyones beliefs should be considered to be a reality?

I do not claim anything all i say people are free to believe in the unseen, just like you are free to only believe in what your physical eyes sees.

You have never met me, Am I a real person?

 

[KWED]

I do not claim anything all i say people are free to believe in the unseen,

But you seem to be implying that the simple act of believing something makes that belief a reasonable possibility.

just like you are free to only believe in what your physical eyes sees.

That is a typical straw man of the religionist.
Science and reason does not demand we "believe" anything, only that we accept things on the basis of evidence and rational argument. It also does not require that we only accept what we see with our eyes.
1. There is incontrovertible evidence for things we cannot see.
2. We can "see" things that are not real.

You have never met me, Am I a real person?

There is a possibility that you are an incredibly sophisticated AI. However, that is so unlikely as to be realistically impossible.
I have verifiable experience of conducting electronic correspondence with real people. The nature of your posts suggests a real person. Therefore the only rational conclusion is that you are a real person.
Of course, all this could just be an hallucination. Maybe it's someone else's hallucination and even I don't exist?

 

[Spirit of Light]

But you seem to be implying that the simple act of believing something makes that belief a reasonable possibility.

That is a typical straw man of the religionist.
Science and reason does not demand we "believe" anything, only that we accept things on the basis of evidence and rational argument. It also does not require that we only accept what we see with our eyes.
1. There is incontrovertible evidence for things we cannot see.
2. We can "see" things that are not real.

There is a possibility that you are an incredibly sophisticated AI. However, that is so unlikely as to be realistically impossible.
I have verifiable experience of conducting electronic correspondence with real people. The nature of your posts suggests a real person. Therefore the only rational conclusion is that you are a real person.
Of course, all this could just be an hallucination. Maybe it's someone else's hallucination and even I don't exist?

1: yes possible
2: you have actually said something along the line of: you have to have proof of existence if you will belive it to true, so you can not prove i am a AI or A human being, if you do not see me in real.
Your socalled only proof is valid fall on it butt, since you without seen me in real say, there is a chance i am a real person.

There is a chance God is real, you just have not seen God nor have any evidence for God not existence.

 

[Segev Moran]

My point still stands. The subject was not dead and their body was being sustained.
In most cases, when the brain is "dead" for long enough but the body resuscitated, there is not only no memory of the event, but no brain function at all.

As far as we know. This study challenges this idea.
I am clueless the same as you are what the results will be.

 

[Segev Moran]

No. "Code" is an abstract concept. The brain is a physical object.

I meant the written words, but I get what you mean. lets change it to logical electrical circuits.

AI is just a term for the operation of a particular type of code. It still requires hardware (brain) for it to exist.

Obviously.

Correct. The physical brain causes the mind.

Yep.

So far, yours is just mine but with a vital component mislabeled.

Pretty much

How does the mind alter the physical brain?
(The engine/fuel analogy was completely wrong).

There are many examples.
Thoughts can literally generate synapses in your brain.
Meditation can literally change your brain.
Positive thought is helpful for better healing.

There are too many purviews that can show examples of this.
Read about neuroplasticity. It will be a good starting place to learn the way it works.
We are only now beginning to understand how it really works, but the studies clearly shows that our brains constantly change due to both physical and mental activities.

 

[KWED]

1: yes possible
2: you have actually said something along the line of: you have to have proof of existence if you will belive it to true, so you can not prove i am a AI or A human being, if you do not see me in real.
Your socalled only proof is valid fall on it butt, since you without seen me in real say, there is a chance i am a real person.

Again, you seem to misunderstand the principles involved here. Rational thinking does not require "absolute proof" before something is accepted as the best explanation.
The simple fact that AI is currently not sophisticated enough to pass as a human in these situations alone makes you being real the best explanation, even though I have no conclusive evidence that you are.
And once AI is sophisticated enough to think for itself and learn and pass as a human, then as far as I am concerned how is it really any different to a human in this context? After all, we are just exchanging ideas via the internet.
Now, if we wanted to go climbing together, it would be a different matter.

There is a chance God is real, you just have not seen God nor have any evidence for God not existence.

There is a chance that some kind of supernatural force is real, but on the basis of everything we know, it is highly unlikely.
The god of the Bible (and Quran, Torah, etc) certainly do not exist. No chance. There is too much claimed about and by them that is demonstrably wrong.

 

[KWED]

As far as we know. This study challenges this idea.

No it doesn't - because the subject was not dead!

I am clueless the same as you are what the results will be.

But I am not clueless. The state of current research into the brain and mind gives us clues that suggest the mind is a function of the physical brain. We can deliberately and specifically manipulate the mind by physically, chemically or electrically manipulating the brain. That is a demonstrable fact. If the mind was independent of the physical brain, this would not be possible.

 

[KWED]

There are many examples.
Thoughts can literally generate synapses in your brain.
Meditation can literally change your brain.
Positive thought is helpful for better healing.

There are too many purviews that can show examples of this.
Read about neuroplasticity. It will be a good starting place to learn the way it works.
We are only now beginning to understand how it really works, but the studies clearly shows that our brains constantly change due to both physical and mental activities.

All those processes involve physical activity within the brain. It is the electro-chemical in the brain activity that produces change, not the "thoughts" that result from that activity.
Another analogy.
Exercise will build muscle, but the idea of exercise will not.