Death not ends us

[Taosaur]

So does anyone else here hold the middle ground that there is neither a magic man with a magic plan nor a cold, mechanical universe in which consciousness is a brief caged spark snuffed by death?

[Minervas Phoenix]

Sure, why not.

[Scatterbrain]

Those two extreme seem to be the most unlikely outcomes.

[Sandform]

The brain is you. When your brain no longer functions neither does your consciousness.

[Tornado Joe]

Yah, I'm pretty sure we're on the same turf there. The brain is you. When your brain no longer functions neither does your consciousness. The brain is an organ; a device very much like any other - only composed of organic matter. Just as a remote controlled toy robot receives radio signals from a remote in order to function, so does your brain. Difference is, where are your signals (consciousness) coming from? What happens to the toy robot when you take out the batteries? Does it cease to be a robot, or does it merely cease to be functional? Real question is, who's the one holding the remote? "If you made them and they made you Who picked up the bill, and who made who? Who made who, who turned the screw?" -- Who Made Who, AC/DC

[skysaw]

Just as a remote controlled toy robot receives radio signals from a remote in order to function, so does your brain. Difference is, where are your signals (consciousness) coming from? What happens to the toy robot when you take out the batteries? Does it cease to be a robot, or does it merely cease to be functional? Real question is, who's the one holding the remote? Many toy robots have no remote. I, too, am autonomous.

[Taosaur]

The brain is you. When your brain no longer functions neither does your consciousness. Just as a remote controlled toy robot receives radio signals from a remote in order to function, so does your brain. Difference is, where are your signals (consciousness) coming from? What happens to the toy robot when you take out the batteries? Does it cease to be a robot, or does it merely cease to be functional? Real question is, who's the one holding the remote? Many toy robots have no remote. I, too, am autonomous. Pardon me if I respond synthetically to these remarks. I don't expect to find consciousness outside or distinct from the body, but neither do I mark some arbitrary point in the coalescence of this system as the beginning of "me," nor will I mark some arbitrary point in its dissolution as my end. The activity of the brain is only a small part of what you're doing at any given moment; the brain is not growing your hair and fingernails, replenishing your skin, or producing red blood cells, but the activity of the brain is an outgrowth of the same processes that achieve all those ends. What privileges the electro-chemical homeostasis above the neck over what takes place below, that "you" reside there and not in the more basic activity that produces and sustains all body systems including the brain? Likewise, the systems of your body do not exist without constant electro-chemical exchange with its surroundings, including the information encoded by fellow humans that supports the more esoteric activities of the brain. The "you" you're all identifying as acting in or through the brain does not exist "autonomously" at all. It's just a locality where innumerable streams of information, including physical and chemical processes, intersect: some with continuities much longer and some much shorter than a human life. If you choose to be the story you're telling yourself in your head, feel free, but drawing the line there is as arbitrary as national boundaries, and likely to cause as much trouble.

[Serkat]

Pardon me if I respond synthetically to these remarks. I don't expect to find consciousness outside or distinct from the body, but neither do I mark some arbitrary point in the coalescence of this system as the beginning of "me," nor will I mark some arbitrary point in its dissolution as my end. The activity of the brain is only a small part of what you're doing at any given moment; the brain is not growing your hair and fingernails, replenishing your skin, or producing red blood cells, but the activity of the brain is an outgrowth of the same processes that achieve all those ends. What privileges the electro-chemical homeostasis above the neck over what takes place below, that "you" reside there and not in the more basic activity that produces and sustains all body systems including the brain? Likewise, the systems of your body do not exist without constant electro-chemical exchange with its surroundings, including the information encoded by fellow humans that supports the more esoteric activities of the brain. The "you" you're all identifying as acting in or through the brain does not exist "autonomously" at all. It's just a locality where innumerable streams of information, including physical and chemical processes, intersect: some with continuities much longer and some much shorter than a human life. If you choose to be the story you're telling yourself in your head, feel free, but drawing the line there is as arbitrary as national boundaries, and likely to cause as much trouble. +1 Best post I've ever read in R/S.

[ChaybaChayba]

So does anyone else here hold the middle ground that there is neither a magic man with a magic plan nor a cold, mechanical universe in which consciousness is a brief caged spark snuffed by death? Yup, I fail to see the point in closing your mind.

[Sandform]

Pardon me if I respond synthetically to these remarks. I don't expect to find consciousness outside or distinct from the body, but neither do I mark some arbitrary point in the coalescence of this system as the beginning of "me," nor will I mark some arbitrary point in its dissolution as my end. The activity of the brain is only a small part of what you're doing at any given moment; the brain is not growing your hair and fingernails, replenishing your skin, or producing red blood cells, but the activity of the brain is an outgrowth of the same processes that achieve all those ends. What privileges the electro-chemical homeostasis above the neck over what takes place below, that "you" reside there and not in the more basic activity that produces and sustains all body systems including the brain? Likewise, the systems of your body do not exist without constant electro-chemical exchange with its surroundings, including the information encoded by fellow humans that supports the more esoteric activities of the brain. The "you" you're all identifying as acting in or through the brain does not exist "autonomously" at all. It's just a locality where innumerable streams of information, including physical and chemical processes, intersect: some with continuities much longer and some much shorter than a human life. If you choose to be the story you're telling yourself in your head, feel free, but drawing the line there is as arbitrary as national boundaries, and likely to cause as much trouble. Lol wait, I'm confused...all I'm saying is that your consciousness ceases to be the "you" that you are, as in the one who has thoughts, emotions, hopes dreams, and acknowledges itself as existent will cease to be. Obviously your atoms will still be here no one is saying that they wont.

[Scatterbrain]

And what is consciousness made of? Your thoughts and memories may die out but your consciousness, or at least the potential for your consciousness to be, shouldn't vanish.

[Taosaur]

Lol wait, I'm confused...all I'm saying is that your consciousness ceases to be the "you" that you are, as in the one who has thoughts, emotions, hopes dreams, and acknowledges itself as existent will cease to be. And I'm saying the "you" you're describing doesn't exist in the first place, and insisting that it does obstructs your view of reality and leads to errors in judgement. Obviously your atoms will still be here no one is saying that they wont. No, no one's addressing that question at all. Try re-reading.

[skysaw]

And what is consciousness made of? Your thoughts and memories may die out but your consciousness, or at least the potential for your consciousness to be, shouldn't vanish. Why not? In all likelyhood, it does vanish. To assume we transcend material destruction is wishful thinking, and perhaps a bit egoistical. The universe isn't always poetic.

[Sandform]

And I'm saying the "you" you're describing doesn't exist in the first place, and insisting that it does obstructs your view of reality and leads to errors in judgement. First off, the "you" I'm describing does exist...because that is the you that MAKES judgements...I wouldn't have judgments to make errors of without it. No, no one's addressing that question at all. Try re-reading. I don't need to "re-read." You need to re-evaluate. Your essentially saying that "you" is the interaction of yourself and the things around you, which would be included in the "you" that your describing. Pardon me if I respond synthetically to these remarks. I don't expect to find consciousness outside or distinct from the body, but neither do I mark some arbitrary point in the coalescence of this system as the beginning of "me," nor will I mark some arbitrary point in its dissolution as my end. The activity of the brain is only a small part of what you're doing at any given moment; the brain is not growing your hair and fingernails, replenishing your skin, or producing red blood cells, but the activity of the brain is an outgrowth of the same processes that achieve all those ends. What privileges the electro-chemical homeostasis above the neck over what takes place below, that "you" reside there and not in the more basic activity that produces and sustains all body systems including the brain? Likewise, the systems of your body do not exist without constant electro-chemical exchange with its surroundings, including the information encoded by fellow humans that supports the more esoteric activities of the brain. The "you" you're all identifying as acting in or through the brain does not exist "autonomously" at all. It's just a locality where innumerable streams of information, including physical and chemical processes, intersect: some with continuities much longer and some much shorter than a human life. If you choose to be the story you're telling yourself in your head, feel free, but drawing the line there is as arbitrary as national boundaries, and likely to cause as much trouble. First bold. You don't consider consciousness to be outside of the human brain, meaning that it isn't something greater than the brain. Second bold. Your saying your consciousness doesn't define you, everything defines you. Third bold. Things other than your brain are a part of you. Processes of your body. Fourth bold. You are not your brain but your everything. Everything your talking about as "you" is just atoms reacting, you ARE talking about atoms. Like I said, no one thinks atoms will disappear, its just that we don't define ourselves as our atoms but instead our thoughts.

[Scatterbrain]

Why not? In all likelyhood, it does vanish. To assume we transcend material destruction is wishful thinking, and perhaps a bit egoistical. The universe isn't always poetic. On the contrary, you're the one assuming we transcend materialism. Take this example: I separate every atom that makes up a pen, then the pen "died", it no longer exists. However, If I put the particles together in the previous structure, the pen is born again, and you would agree it's the exact same pen right? Same thing for consciousness, if it can exist once, it can exist again. I'd assume consciousness is probably not dependant on "which" atoms constitue it (like the pen), but rather on some yet unknown mechanism.

[skysaw]

On the contrary, you're the one assuming we transcend materialism. Take this example: I separate every atom that makes up a pen, then the pen "died", it no longer exists. However, If I put the particles together in the previous structure, the pen is born again, and you would agree it's the exact same pen right? Same thing for consciousness, if it can exist once, it can exist again. A pen is made of atoms (material), a consciouness is not (immaterial). Your analogy does not apply.

[Scatterbrain]

Unless you assume the existence of a soul or something similar, the analogy does apply. Excluding qualia, everything we know is material.

[skysaw]

Unless you assume the existence of a soul or something similar, the analogy does apply. A leap I didn't make. Having a soul would be the argument for existing after your body is destroyed. I am making the opposite argument. Putting your atoms back together after you die doesn't magically bring you back to life. You're just plain old gone.

[Sandform]

A leap I didn't make. Having a soul would be the argument for existing after your body is destroyed. I am making the opposite argument. Putting your atoms back together after you die doesn't magically bring you back to life. You're just plain old gone. So if your atoms are disassembled..and then reassembled, then your dead? I think your ascribing to the single moment existence philosophy. Essentially your already dead, well, technically everything you were in the past is dead. Each moment you live, the person that was you is now dead...You are a a different version than the person right before and right after the moment you percieve a thing.

[Scatterbrain]

If we had the technology to put the atoms in the exact place as they were before death, you should be alive and the exact same person. (not an exact copy) But I am not arguing for the undeath of ego and humanity, just the state of being conscious, or the potential to be conscious. Given that we have no knowledge of anything spiritual, it is safe to assume consciousness is based on a material mechanism. Since we don't know what that mechanism is, it remains a possibility that (our) consciousness may not necessarily need the (exact) human brain to arise again. You could die and find yourself as a conscious dust cloud floating in space, not thinking or feeling anything, but still "conscious", like in a long abstract non-lucid dream.

[Super Duck]

The brain is you. When your brain no longer functions neither does your consciousness. The brain is not you. Every six weeks every cell in your body reproduces. However, you don't go back to being a baby every 6 weeks. You are your mind which is electrical impulses. You're still right though, at least scientifically. When we die the impluses stop and, in theory, you lose conciousness forever. Still, I believe different because the thought isn't very nice.

[skysaw]

So if your atoms are disassembled..and then reassembled, then your dead? I don't really know the answer to that, but I'm going to guess that would make a different person. More importantly, I'm going to guess that it could and will never happen. But let's say that it could happen and that it would make the same person. I'm fine with imagining that. In that case then yes, you could exist again. But while the atoms were apart, you did not exist. But even if this highly unlikely scenario holds, those whose atoms somehow reassemble will eventually "die" again anyway, effectively "ending" them. All of this seems like pointless hair-splitting to me. We are talking about whether or not death is the end of us, not whether there were some theoretical possibility to exist again. Further, I believe the emphasis was one of a spiritual nature, and whether or not we naturally continue to another state where our consciousness is preserved. It is in this context that I reaffirm that in all likelyhood, death is indeed the end of us.

[Sandform]

The brain is not you. Every six weeks every cell in your body reproduces. However, you don't go back to being a baby every 6 weeks. You are your mind which is electrical impulses. You're still right though. When we die the implses stop and you lose conciousness forever. Your brain is still a brain whether or not it collects new resources to create itself. What you are comes from your brain...A painting is a painting whether or not someone has to go paint the thing over again because it is fading.

[Super Duck]

Your brain is still a brain whether or not it collects new resources to create itself. What you are comes from your brain...A painting is a painting whether or not someone has to go paint the thing over again because it is fading. I know it is still a brain but it's a whole new brain. Nothing is left of the brain you had six weeks ago. If you took the Mona Lisa and destroyed it and repainted it six weeks later it would be a different, new picture.

[Sandform]

I know it is still a brain but it's a whole new brain. Nothing is left of the brain you had six weeks ago. If you took the Mona Lisa and destroyed it and repainted it six weeks later it would be a different, new picture. You realize that the paintings in places like the sistine chapel have artists come in and paint over the faded pictures right...do you consider these paintings to not be the same painting? It is simply new resources to achieve the same thing. Our consciousness is never the same in the first place...