Thread: After you die.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Yes I could be. Show me I couldn't be. Reality is relative.

Penguins in Antarctica are illiterate and don't have views on the afterlife or access to the internet.

Reality is not relative, nor is it a byproduct of substance. Now you are being inconsistent.

Okay, so I know of existence. Big whoop. What does that mean? Just because senses may be flawed is not a good reason to attribute consciousness to something beyond the human mind. It may very well be the one thing you absolutely know is true without a doubt, but perhaps that is only because you cannot conceive of being mistaken. You can't imagine consciousness being a mind-created hallucination.

Knowing of existence is the same as being aware of existence; it is consciousness. No channeling, nothing "outside", nothing "supernatural". Perhaps it is something "you absolutely know is true without a doubt", not only because there is no conceivable way of being mistaken, but no actual, valid way. You don't need to believe it, you can however, choose to believe it is a hallucination. That's your problem.

Originally Posted by spockman

So if God was not supernatural and the afterlife was not paranormal, but all of it was subjected to the same natural laws that everything else is, (albeit laws that we don't yet understand,) you would have no problem with that?

If you could conclusively prove that there is a god and an afterlife, I will change my mind. That simple.

Originally Posted by really

Penguins in Antarctica are illiterate and don't have views on the afterlife or access to the internet.

Reality is not relative, nor is it a byproduct of substance. Now you are being inconsistent.

The penguins of Antarctica as you know them are illiterate and have no views on afterlife. That doesn't mean I can't be hallucinating Matrix-style, and I really am a penguin dreaming about being a human.

Knowing of existence is the same as being aware of existence; it is consciousness. No channeling, nothing "outside", nothing "supernatural". Perhaps it is something "you absolutely know is true without a doubt", not only because there is no conceivable way of being mistaken, but no actual, valid way. You don't need to believe it, you can however, choose to believe it is a hallucination. That's your problem.

I don't believe it's a hallucination. That is me playing Devil's Advocate. My entire argument is that consciousness is the sole product of the human mind. That is all I'm arguing. That, when the brain stops working, so does your consciousness. That there is no afterlife. That, once you die, you no longer know that you exist, you receive no sensory input, you cannot think, and that generally all that is "you" is no more.

This is kind of a wrench in the discussion, but if the universe is expanding and contracting: and will do so forever along the same lines each time, and everything that has ever happened is doomed to be repeated because of this, would that be an after life? Or would it be a different you- so not really you?

Originally Posted by spockman

This is kind of a wrench in the discussion, but if the universe is expanding and contracting: and will do so forever along the same lines each time, and everything that has ever happened is doomed to be repeated because of this, would that be an after life? Or would it be a different you- so not really you?

Well, the contraction bit is open for debate. If the recently-discovered dark matter turns out to be just that, then the universe is likely to reverse its expansion at some point in time. But I digress. If the universe is indeed bound to crunch and explode indefinitely, then all the matter that fell exactly where it is in this universe at this point in time is going to again at some point, given an infinite amount of time. Which means that "you" will exist again some day. But, "you" won't really be existing. You'll have lost all your experiences, memories, consciousness...the "you" has ceased to exist. Rather, you have created an exact matter replica. If you take out the factor of time, assume you could create a person exactly like you down to the atomic level, then go and stand right beside them. You may think exactly the same thoughts and have exactly the same memories, but you are two separate entities, no matter how similar.

Originally Posted by Mario92

The penguins of Antarctica as you know them are illiterate and have no views on afterlife. That doesn't mean I can't be hallucinating Matrix-style, and I really am a penguin dreaming about being a human.

Nonsense-talk aside though, you're not accepting that consciousness is independent of whether you're hallucinating or not. The penguin knows of existence, whether it is a "matrix-style" dream or not. Do you see why the hallucination is irrelevant? It is not being relied upon. Consciousness cannot be flawed; it is part of all reality. Concepts and interpretations therein can be flawed. Dreams can be false. But everything in itself is its own truth. Two different realms of experience. The paradox here is that consciousness and existence don't need to be justified or proven.

I don't believe it's a hallucination. That is me playing Devil's Advocate. My entire argument is that consciousness is the sole product of the human mind. That is all I'm arguing. That, when the brain stops working, so does your consciousness. That there is no afterlife. That, once you die, you no longer know that you exist, you receive no sensory input, you cannot think, and that generally all that is "you" is no more.

I already knew what your argument was. This is getting tedious; it would be great if you can go more in depth.

Originally Posted by spockman

This is kind of a wrench in the discussion, but if the universe is expanding and contracting: and will do so forever along the same lines each time, and everything that has ever happened is doomed to be repeated because of this, would that be an after life? Or would it be a different you- so not really you?

This seems to be subtly alluding to the fact that everybody is part of the universe; everybody is an inseparable part of the greater whole. This greater whole: the "universe" as we call it, is what we are part of. There are endless forms that exist within the universe, and all of them can be described as transitory. The issue is that humans think they are bodies. Of course, the bodies, their personalities and "you" all are born and die. But in consciousness, we are not subject to death and we do not really exist as a body; a "you" or "me". In consciousness, it does not matter whether the universe began again or not, because every universe will be the same, and in the end, birth and death just describe appearances. The notion of the possible after-life or the continuation of one's soul is therefore part of wisdom, not proof.

Originally Posted by really

The paradox here is that consciousness and existence don't need to be justified or proven.

But the afterlife does. I know consciousness exists. This I'm not debating. But the afterlife is an entirely different matter.

I already knew what your argument was. This is getting tedious; it would be great if you can go more in depth.

I don't really know how to. Seems fairly straightforward to me. Brain = source of consciousness. Ergo, when the brain stops working (dies), so does consciousness. Put someone in a persistent vegetative state. Their brain (or at least key parts of it) have been destroyed. They are not conscious. You're not destroying either matter or energy. All you're doing is inhibiting normal brain function. Similarly, the ability to think is directly related to having conscious thought. Without the power to process what you're observing, or to consider even the tiniest of things, you are not conscious. It doesn't matter if your eyes pick up light...unless you can process that information, you aren't conscious. (Note I'm not saying blind people aren't conscious. There's more to it than loss of sense. You must lose cognition, too).

This seems to be subtly alluding to the fact that everybody is part of the universe; everybody is an inseparable part of the greater whole. This greater whole: the "universe" as we call it, is what we are part of. There are endless forms that exist within the universe, and all of them can be described as transitory. The issue is that humans think they are bodies. Of course, the bodies, their personalities and "you" all are born and die. But in consciousness, we are not subject to death and we do not really exist as a body; a "you" or "me". In consciousness, it does not matter whether the universe began again or not, because every universe will be the same, and in the end, birth and death just describe appearances. The notion of the possible after-life or the continuation of one's soul is therefore part of wisdom, not proof.

This is where I think our main problem lies. You argue that consciousness is something beyond death. I argue that it is a direct result of the normal biological processes that take place inside the brain, and dies when the brain dies. Why must I be wrong? What is it, exactly, that makes you right?

Originally Posted by Mario92

But the afterlife does. I know consciousness exists. This I'm not debating. But the afterlife is an entirely different matter.

I have implied that consciousness is an essential quality of life itself, not mere "alertness" or the fact of being conscious (vs. unconscious). Awareness arises out of the intangible nature of life; not a material form. In this sense, investigating consciousness as intrinsic to the nature of life brings about a better understanding of the after-life, even if it is intuited. After all, wouldn't studying more of "life" inside ones awareness help one understand the possibility of the "after-life"?

Can you otherwise distinguish/define the two terms (consciousness vs. afterlife)?

I don't really know how to. Seems fairly straightforward to me. Brain = source of consciousness. Ergo, when the brain stops working (dies), so does consciousness. Put someone in a persistent vegetative state. Their brain (or at least key parts of it) have been destroyed. They are not conscious. You're not destroying either matter or energy. All you're doing is inhibiting normal brain function. Similarly, the ability to think is directly related to having conscious thought. Without the power to process what you're observing, or to consider even the tiniest of things, you are not conscious. It doesn't matter if your eyes pick up light...unless you can process that information, you aren't conscious. (Note I'm not saying blind people aren't conscious. There's more to it than loss of sense. You must lose cognition, too).

You may be able to lose all these facets, but none of these are the intangible capacity for awareness. Brain = mechanism for processing all mental, emotional and sensory phenomena. If the brain is the source of consciousness, what part of the brain constitutes for being aware of reality, especially reality that is not conceptual, detectable or provable? The whole realm of spirituality is rejected for the presumption that the brain creates reality.

This is where I think our main problem lies. You argue that consciousness is something beyond death. I argue that it is a direct result of the normal biological processes that take place inside the brain, and dies when the brain dies. Why must I be wrong? What is it, exactly, that makes you right?

The question is, what is the "main problem"? Neither of us can really give decent proof, yet I have admitted that and given better way around it. It is the paradigm issue that is the main problem. If somebody could give you evidence for life, would you believe that you're alive? You don't need to rely on your heart beating; that happens automatically. When it comes to the nature of life as consciousness; as a soul, it comes down to your knowledge of existence, not somebody else's.

Originally Posted by really

I have implied that consciousness is an essential quality of life itself, not mere "alertness" or the fact of being conscious (vs. unconscious). Awareness arises out of the intangible nature of life; not a material form. In this sense, investigating consciousness as intrinsic to the nature of life brings about a better understanding of the after-life, even if it is intuited. After all, wouldn't studying more of "life" inside ones awareness help one understand the possibility of the "after-life"?

See, I argue that consciousness is not an essential quality of life. Amoebas certainly don't appear sentient. And life itself is rather interesting. To date, we have not discovered any sort of "intangible" nature of life. It is...chemical reactions. Not sure what you're really trying to say here. I'm all for studying life and consciousness and whatnot, but how exactly you are getting the afterlife out of all this is a bit beyond me.

Can you otherwise distinguish/define the two terms (consciousness vs. afterlife)?

Consciousness: a. Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.
b. Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered.
2. Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious life on the planet.

Afterlife: 1 : an existence after death

Seem pretty darn unique to me. Consciousness essentially means having thought, will, or perception. The afterlife is life after death, in whatever way, shape, or form that may take. To have an afterlife, you must first establish that consciousness is something that continues on once the human body has died. Unfortunately, there is no reason backed up by evidence to believe this to be so. Maybe at a future date, but not in the present.

You may be able to lose all these facets, but none of these are the intangible capacity for awareness. Brain = mechanism for processing all mental, emotional and sensory phenomena. If the brain is the source of consciousness, what part of the brain constitutes for being aware of reality, especially reality that is not conceptual, detectable or provable?

Oh, but it does so much more than that! It stores and calls upon memories, regulates the body, does every bit of thinking. It is the thing that allows you to be conscious in the first place. If you lose all those facets, you aren't conscious anymore. You cannot conceive even the tiniest of thoughts, yet alone your place in the universe. You can't think that you exist. You are unable to. As for exactly what part of the brain is an actively researched topic. Much is yet to be learned, but we are making headway. And what do you mean by "aware of reality that is not conceptual, detectable, or provable?" I detect this reality. It is real. It may be flawed, but it is damn close enough. Every other potential reality is just so much speculation.

The whole realm of spirituality is rejected for the presumption that the brain creates reality.

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

The question is, what is the "main problem"? Neither of us can really give decent proof, yet I have admitted that and given better way around it. It is the paradigm issue that is the main problem. If somebody could give you evidence for life, would you believe that you're alive? You don't need to rely on your heart beating; that happens automatically. When it comes to the nature of life as consciousness; as a soul, it comes down to your knowledge of existence, not somebody else's.

Again, not sure what you're saying. We have evidence for life. I can look at plant cells under a microscope, and they're alive. I know I'm alive. And I kinda do have to rely on my heart beating, seeing as how without it I'll die and cease to exist. And a soul...what balderdash.

I'm largely convinced that, in the nano seconds before your death, you will experience what seems to you like an eternity, in whatever after-life you so choose to believe in.

That's what Christians experience heaven and white lights, and atheists experience black-nothingness when they die.

I'll just be content with manipulating the "after-life" to my whim, sort of like being in an eternal lucid dream. Sounds kind of fun, actually. Best get experiencing life to the fullest so that my mind has plenty of experiences to draw from to create this world for me, huh?

Originally Posted by Mario92

See, I argue that consciousness is not an essential quality of life. Amoebas certainly don't appear sentient. And life itself is rather interesting. To date, we have not discovered any sort of "intangible" nature of life. It is...chemical reactions.

You don't get it, you will never discover it because you can't discover "intangible" nature! What is discoverable is tangible. What is intangible has no form. What exactly do you expect?

And what do you mean by "aware of reality that is not conceptual, detectable, or provable?" I detect this reality. It is real. It may be flawed, but it is damn close enough. Every other potential reality is just so much speculation.

How can you detect it if you can't prove it?

I know I'm alive. And I kinda do have to rely on my heart beating, seeing as how without it I'll die and cease to exist. And a soul...what balderdash.

If you say you know you're alive, do you have to check if your heart is beating? That's the point. Does it start with you finding your heart/pulse, or does it start with you knowing that you're alive, already?

Originally Posted by really

You don't get it, you will never discover it because you can't discover "intangible" nature! What is discoverable is tangible. What is intangible has no form. What exactly do you expect?

That the intangible is an unnecessary thing. If it is truly intangible, it has no impact, no bearing, no observable effect on reality. It is an unnecessary variable in the equation. It is not only nonexistent, but completely unneeded.

How can you detect it if you can't prove it?

I use my eyes to look around. Reality detected.

If you say you know you're alive, do you have to check if your heart is beating? That's the point. Does it start with you finding your heart/pulse, or does it start with you knowing that you're alive, already?

Well, at any given time, I guess I just sort of suppose I'm still alive. Seeing as how I'm still functioning, I kind of know that my heart is beating. It's a fact my brain arrives at without ever passing through conscious thought. Though those times I suspect I may be dead, a quick pulse check sets my mind at ease.

Originally Posted by Mario92

That the intangible is an unnecessary thing. If it is truly intangible, it has no impact, no bearing, no observable effect on reality. It is an unnecessary variable in the equation. It is not only nonexistent, but completely unneeded.

If it is truly intangible, you can't detect it because there is no tangibility and no form; that's the definition of intangible. What is intangible is not merely "non-existent", it is only non-existent as tangibility. Awareness is intangible, as are other dimensions.

I use my eyes to look around. Reality detected.

Nope that doesn't count. If reality needed to be detected, you wouldn't know you had eyes to begin with would you? You use your eyes to detect the world around you; the physical, perceivable world, which is not beyond proof, concepts or detection as an object.

Well, at any given time, I guess I just sort of suppose I'm still alive. Seeing as how I'm still functioning, I kind of know that my heart is beating. It's a fact my brain arrives at without ever passing through conscious thought. Though those times I suspect I may be dead, a quick pulse check sets my mind at ease.

There it is: no need for proof huh? It's a redundant fact.

Originally Posted by really

If it is truly intangible, you can't detect it because there is no tangibility and no form; that's the definition of intangible. What is intangible is not merely "non-existent", it is only non-existent as tangibility. Awareness is intangible, as are other dimensions.

Awareness is observable. I can observe it. It has an obvious impact on my reality. This "intangible" nature of yours, conversely, is not observable, has no impact on reality, and is a completely unnecessary variable. It's adding more complexity to the equation that doesn't need to be there.

Nope that doesn't count. If reality needed to be detected, you wouldn't know you had eyes to begin with would you? You use your eyes to detect the world around you; the physical, perceivable world, which is not beyond proof, concepts or detection as an object.

You've officially lost me. What is your argument here? What are you trying to get at?

There it is: no need for proof huh? It's a redundant fact.

Fact. Proof. I thought we weren't having any of that now, were we? I'm aware of the fact that my heart is beating at some level of consciousness; it just isn't dominating my active conscious thought.

I think it'd be like before you were born conceived. You'd basically be non-existent.

Originally Posted by Puffin

I think it'd be like before you were born conceived. You'd basically be non-existent.

Do you know what it was like before you were born, according to your current knowledge?


Mario, I do not understand how you can miss this. Why don't you explain to me how you can observe "awareness"? And why can you "observe" awareness, when awareness is obviously beyond observation and yet part of it? To be honest, I am very surprised you don't get my point.

Originally Posted by really

Do you know what it was like before you were born, according to your current knowledge?

That is exactly the point: you didn't exist. You have no memory of that time, and had no consciousness. A return to that state would not only be the most logical, but the simplest. Even if you did somehow live on, without knowing that you exist or having any memory at all, it doesn't really matter.

Mario, I do not understand how you can miss this. Why don't you explain to me how you can observe "awareness"? And why can you "observe" awareness, when awareness is obviously beyond observation and yet part of it? To be honest, I am very surprised you don't get my point.

I observe it in myself and others. I experience it, do I not? That is observation. I can watch other people be aware.

I'm surprised you're thinking you're making a point. Where in our debate are we, and how did we get here? I'm still on the afterlife, and whether or not "we" will be around to experience it. I argue no. What argue thee?

Originally Posted by really

Do you know what it was like before you were born, according to your current knowledge?

No. That's why I believe that no one knows.

Originally Posted by Mario92

That is exactly the point: you didn't exist. You have no memory of that time, and had no consciousness. A return to that state would not only be the most logical, but the simplest. Even if you did somehow live on, without knowing that you exist or having any memory at all, it doesn't really matter.

If I couldn't remember, it is best not to draw an immediate conclusion, and so simply find some other method. Memory is unreliable. It is easy to say that people forget things, but that's not to say certain things never happened at all.

I observe it in myself and others. I experience it, do I not? That is observation. I can watch other people be aware.

You are essentially saying that you are observing observing. That cannot be done. You cannot observe awareness as such. That is why you cannot "detect" it. It spontaneously exists whether you think you're experiencing it or not.


In saying that we do not know what happened before us in this life, and that we cannot prove what comes next after us in this life, we can only learn from the current existence.

Originally Posted by really

If I couldn't remember, it is best not to draw an immediate conclusion, and so simply find some other method. Memory is unreliable. It is easy to say that people forget things, but that's not to say certain things never happened at all.

Regardless, if you can't remember your life, "you" cease to exist.

You are essentially saying that you are observing observing. That cannot be done. You cannot observe awareness as such. That is why you cannot "detect" it. It spontaneously exists whether you think you're experiencing it or not.

I use my powers of observation to observe that I can, indeed, use my powers of observation. This can be done quite nicely.

In saying that we do not know what happened before us in this life, and that we cannot prove what comes next after us in this life, we can only learn from the current existence.

But you do believe that there is something after this life, no? Well, that is your choice. I believe otherwise, but agree that we may never know what's going on for sure.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Regardless, if you can't remember your life, "you" cease to exist.

It is really disappointing how shallow you're making this. I may as well forget the discussion therefore making it "cease" to exist. And you don't see the flaw in the simple wording?

I use my powers of observation to observe that I can, indeed, use my powers of observation. This can be done quite nicely.

In what context? How can you perceive the world around you? First, you must be aware. Then you can look around you; then you can "use your powers" of observation, but you will only be limited to your senses.

But you do believe that there is something after this life, no? Well, that is your choice. I believe otherwise, but agree that we may never know what's going on for sure.

This doesn't follow. If you agree that you will never know what's going on for sure, maybe you should re-trace your conclusions.

I have nothing further to add.

Originally Posted by really

It is really disappointing how shallow you're making this. I may as well forget the discussion therefore making it "cease" to exist. And you don't see the flaw in the simple wording?

If everyone forgets it in entirety and all record that it ever happened is removed, it effectively does cease to exist. It perhaps existed in the past, but the conscious embodiment of this argument certainly doesn't linger. I see no flaws. If you lose all your memories and start over at square one, "you" as you are right now is no more. He has ceased to exist. He has been replaced, and in doing so, has been eliminated. It doesn't matter if some conscious entity continues on if it doesn't remember a goddamn thing.

In what context? How can you perceive the world around you? First, you must be aware. Then you can look around you; then you can "use your powers" of observation, but you will only be limited to your senses.

Yes! Senses! Very good. I can use my senses to observe the world around me. And thanks to my awareness, that information actually means something! So instead of looking at an apple and not processing that, I can use my awareness to identify it as an apple, and perhaps consider eating it. I am experiencing the effects of my awareness. I am observing it in some sense, if even indirectly.

This doesn't follow. If you agree that you will never know what's going on for sure, maybe you should re-trace your conclusions.

I have nothing further to add.

No. Listen to me. I say we do not know. Belief is something entirely different from knowledge. Belief is assumption. Belief is holding something to be true without any evidence to support it. As a logical human being, I cannot say something exists if I don't know it exists. What you would have me do is assume the afterlife is real. This is just as bad, if not worse, than assuming it isn't. At least I have a lack of supporting evidence to go off of. You have absolutely nothing to justify your belief. You say we don't know, but you think you do.

Mario and Really, you two are arguing about the difference between realism and idealism. realism saying that the only things that exist exist because of some fundamental physical laws, and all perception is based on that. Idealism stating the opposite, that the idea of reality as being physically external isn't true, and that all is made up from the mind , and consciousness comes from the mind/unknown, as opposed to the mind coming from physical existence, and consciousness therefore being a perception of physical existence of the external.

It would be well for both of you to exercise your conscious, regardless of your thoughts of it's meaning, and attempt to understand the theory behind the both opposing beliefs, whether it's for reality as a whole, or only consciousness in particular.

As for the afterlife in relation to consciousness, they are related in the same way that anything is related to the consciousness IMO. The consciousness is the only way to be aware of the perception of what is real, of your 5 senses, etc etc. I've heard of the difference between objective consciousness, from plants and less complex animals, and subjective consciousness, from self aware beings. Objective consciousness being an existence through memory, subjective through awareness.

That being said, most people aren't aware of what they're doing in life. Lots of our consciousness is lost in memory IMO, and only through awareness can you be conscious at all times, in the present moment. That being said, the question isn't the perception of death or the afterlife, the question is the type of consciousness in that perception. Objective, subjective, or lack of consciousness? A lack of consciousness would be the same as nothing, even if the senses are engaged, and if your belief is that we have no consciousness, than the afterlife will have the same exact feeling as this life IMO.

This of course is only my speculation, and is subject to critique.

Originally Posted by JackALope2323

I'm largely convinced that, in the nano seconds before your death, you will experience what seems to you like an eternity, in whatever after-life you so choose to believe in.

That's what Christians experience heaven and white lights, and atheists experience black-nothingness when they die.

I'll just be content with manipulating the "after-life" to my whim, sort of like being in an eternal lucid dream. Sounds kind of fun, actually. Best get experiencing life to the fullest so that my mind has plenty of experiences to draw from to create this world for me, huh?

Man, your onto it! I'm surprised no one has mentioned DMT yet.. DMT is the most POWERFUL hallucogenic in the world. Far more powerful than LSD and even Salvia. It is realised at the moment you are born, which is interesting enough. It is realised when you sleep, to prevent a build up which would kill you. And I bet you all know what that causes. Without DMT, none of us would be on this forum now discussing the afterlife-DMT causes dreams. And, what I find the MOST interesting, is what happens at the moment you die. All of the DMT that has being building up since the moment you began, is FLOODED into the brain and you will trip your fucking balls off! There is 5-6 minutes of brain activity after you die, in which time will have NO meaning from your perception, people who have the synthesized version say thre trip seemed to last for hours, even though just 5 minutes minutes will have past since they started there enlightening trip. Yes, this all very proven, and I do think that in some senses, we will be able to control the trip. BUT, how good we are in this life, sorry, how HAPPY we are in this life, I think will directly affect how enjoyable the trip is. Drugs and lucid dreaming will help. There is NO such thing as 'AFTER LIFE'. After life, comes death, rendering you as concious as a pencil. Whether there is life after your body dies however, is another matter.

Originally Posted by andrewp

Ever ponder what would happen after you die? I can't think of what it feels like. I can't imagine just not "being" here. It's an amazing subject to study.

Don Piper was a Baptist preacher when he was a victim of a car crash. He was killed instantly upon impact. Paramedics found no signs of life in him. 90 minutes later, he was alive again. Don is author of the book 90 Minutes in Heaven. In the book, he describes heaven.

I am Christian, so I believe his story. He describes a euphoria, and a feeling of eternal happiness. I know this is more religion than science, but what do you all believe happens when someone dies?


I'm new to this forum, so excuse me if I posted this in the wrong section, but I believe this to be Beyond Dreaming...

Don Piper's story sounds very fascinting indeed. Sounds like I want to read that book.
And really, you don't have to be a Christian to believe his story. I believe his story. Or rather I KNOW it to be true
I do not follow any particulair religious beliefsystem, and yet I Know of the Heaven which he describes, having experienced it countless times.


Whenever we Dream at night of travelling afoot through forrests, while your body lies motionless in bed; To me this experience is proof that Disembodied consciousness is possible.
Dreaming goes to show that the Consciousness does not need the body to exist. It can appearantly exist seperately from the body entirely.

If a living being has died, it's Consciousness is no longer in it's body. That is the one thing we, the living, know about Death as a fact.
A breakthrough experience on vaporised DMT will give you a pretty good idea of what Dying could be like.
Allthough DMT is harmless physically, it shares 1 common quality with Dying; Disembodyment of Consciousness.
DMT is known to be released inside the human brain in massive quantaties uppon dying and is believed to be responsible
for mystical, visionairy Near Death Experiences. If you compair Near Death Experiences with vaporised DMT experiences,
the resemblance is striking.

When someone inhales a breakthrough dose of DMT vapor, they will find that their Consciousness is no longer in their body.
Instead it is launched into an indescribable, immaterial realm.
I can hear many people thinking "what the hell is DMT?" and the following 5 part, short documentairy can answer that question better than I ever could:
DMT; The Spirit Molecule part 1 You can find the other 4 parts there yourself.

This documentairy will also cover NDEs and give more insight into what dying might be like.