How is that "BS"? And also isn't idiot scientist an oxymoron? And I don't that any of them has said bodies are what define our personality unless if by bodies they meant specificly the brain. Also I'm not sure about other people but the argument "because there's no scientific evidence" sounds pretty regular and legitimite coming from scientists. But yes I will have to agree there are some things science can't explain but you can't say people are stupid trying to figure out how it works any ways, Humans curiosity is what has let us advance so far and thus is one of our greatest traits. And isn't evidence required for all arguments religous and non religous? If I were to walk up to you one day and point to a guy walking down the street randomly and say that that persons a murderer without showing you proof then wouldn't you say I'm full of BS? Yet you seem to call other people full of BS just because they demand proof of an afterlife.Grounogeos said:
Poll: Does human consciousness die with the body?
- Thread starter Spongeguardian
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So you're saying that the body is dead, but the mind creates a world of its own? So, the real me could be dead, and all of this is just a figment of my bored brain. So you are not real, just something my mind made up for me to toy with. That's trippy. I like it.FROGGEman2 said:
Personally I think consciousness dies with the body. However, we all hope that here is an afterlife because we can't perceive the complete and total nothingness of death, an absence of conscious thought. Try and do it, clear your mind of all thoughts, no pictures, no color, no emotions, block out all smells, sounds and feelings. Nothing at all. Impossible, right? We cannot perceive what happens when we die so for comfort we hope for some kind of continuation when our biological clock runs out. But that's just my opinion anyway.
That picture is so awesome that I just made it my desk top backround. And honestly, that picture basicly sums up my usual arguments against religous people.DTWolfwood said:unless proven otherwise im incline to think Yes.
and i cant resist posting this too XD
So when we alter the programming with mood altering drugs, and these drugs work, what would you call that? Their soul (or whatever you call it) just trying to trick us? If someone suffers brain damage, and afterwards they seem not all there, is that because a chunk of their consciousness drifted away, like the brain's just an anchor that got set loose?Grounogeos said:
If there was something more to us, a lot of medical stuff just wouldn't work the way it does. Sorry.
I just want to ask people who belive in some form of an after life or reincarnation, how do thoughts live on after the brain has rotted in the ground? Do our toughts and brain fly away as some untouchable, unseeable (is that a word?) air into another object? (or formed into another object for the after life people) or do you religous people have some other explanation where someone how the brain can die but the thoughts can live on?
Doesn't that impossibility therefore imply that even in death, we cannot comprehend oblivion and therefore our thoughts and ideas live on? If the human mind cannot comprehend oblivion, how can the human mind accept it?Danish_4116 said:
We cannot define the idea of 'thought', and therefore have no accepted definition for consciousness. It is not just 'electrical synapses in the brain'. Those are, as far as we can tell, what deliver 'thought' to the rest of our body so that we can perceive it. Is 'thought' a thing in and of itself? Lacking a body, would we be reduced to just 'thought'? If so, wouldn't it have to continue to exist, as it cannot function alongside oblivion?
/pseudo-science philosophy off
To busy living to have throught about it really. (and thats from a christten perspective)
Thats not science. It would only be science if someone died then was made alive again (undeadend?) then they recorded what they observed with there sences (traditional 5 or any other). What your doing is philososphy as you are postulating theories based on assumption.Fetzenfisch said:
Here's what I'd like to believe:
Time, and the human mind's perception thereof, is purely subjective, therefore it can be "stretched." So when the human body nears death, I'd like to think that the brain is flooded with the chemicals that cause this perceived time dilation as well as the chemicals that cause hallucination, making our experience of the moment of death into a whole new perceived life. Basically, the moment you're about to die, your brain stops thinking about time, making it imperceptible, while simultaneously sending you on the most amazing trip you could ever imagine. And since reality is little more than perception, this would constitute a life after (or during, I suppose) death.
That's what I'd like to believe. What I find much more likely is that we simply die and stop existing.
Time, and the human mind's perception thereof, is purely subjective, therefore it can be "stretched." So when the human body nears death, I'd like to think that the brain is flooded with the chemicals that cause this perceived time dilation as well as the chemicals that cause hallucination, making our experience of the moment of death into a whole new perceived life. Basically, the moment you're about to die, your brain stops thinking about time, making it imperceptible, while simultaneously sending you on the most amazing trip you could ever imagine. And since reality is little more than perception, this would constitute a life after (or during, I suppose) death.
That's what I'd like to believe. What I find much more likely is that we simply die and stop existing.
What gives you the idea that there is a grand scheme, I have never seen something that might persuade me that there is one. On the scale of contributing to the universe, child birth is basically the most amazing thing a creature can do and while that furthers earths "grand scheme" it doesn't seem to be effecting the universe in any great way.Signa said:
Yes. Simply because all experimental evidence that I have seen points to a person's consciousness to cease existing after physical death. At the very least, they lose the ability to be the cause of anything, which is basically the same thing is non-existence.
Yes its not physically possible for the consciousness to exist without the body keeping it alive
Why wouldn't there be one? Why can't we make one? All I'm saying is that if there is no afterlife, then what's the point of normal life? Also, I would put forth that child birth isn't great at all because as life forms, that's all we are designed to do. We wouldn't exist if it wasn't for reproduction. You can repeat over and over as I keep hearing it that life is a miracle 'n' stuff, but I just see it as a biological machine working its gears. Life is really only as important to the that life and the other lives that life affects. If that life belonged to a suicidal hermit, then how was it miraculous or precious?Bealzibob said:
As grim and fatalistic I'm making this all sound, I'm just expressing what I think the alternative to not believing in an afterlife would mean for me. I really don't know what happens after death, and scientifically, there is nothing to show. That's why I'm making a choice to believe in something more. If I didn't, then I just don't see a point to a planet's ecosystem that revolves around destroying other lives so that the strongest survive for nothing. It's horribly sick and twisted.
Scientific studies haven't shown any evidence of an afterlife, but that's just such a depressing thought that I usually go with, "My consciousness will merge with that of a greater intelligence in space somewhere."