What really happens to people when they die?

by ButtLight 73 Replies latest jw friends

Frannie Banannie

Maybe we're sent here as punishment and to be refined, then ;we get relief when we die.

FHN, I agree.
BTW, love yer new avatar! Kewl!
Frannie
googlemagoogle

yes, seals are cute. that's why they got souls.
FlyingHighNow

BTW, love yer new avatar! Kewl!
Thank you. I love yours, too. I copied your picture and your daughter's picture and saved them. You both prove that some of the prettiest ladies on earth come from Texas. Maybe when I lived in Texas, it rubbed off on me a little. I think it shows in the smile.
funkyderek

You assert that our consciousness is 100% caused by our physical body. That has not been proven scientifically.

Perhaps not, but scientifically nothing else has ever been observed that could be responsible for consciousness. It seems in every way to be part of the brain.
In fact, I read that a certain woman lost most of her brain (by a disease, I think) and she still functioned well. Scientists couldn't figure out how she was functioning with such a large part of her brain missing. I'll need to look that up and provide a reference, of course. (going to work in a minute).
I'd like to see that reference. This is the sort of thing that can help us understand how consciousness actually works. If it works with certain parts of the brain damaged or missing, then my hunch would be that it is a function of one of the remaining parts of the brain. Generally people whose brains are physically damaged experience significantly altered states of consciousness, ranging from hallucinations to complete personality changes. Something as simple as a general anaesthetic has the affect of temporarily removing consciousness. Where does it go during this time? Why are we not conscious all the time? Why are the times when we are unconscious always - always - accompanied by changes in the physical activity of the brain?
This was followed up by experiments where parts of rats brains were removed to ascertain the effect. In the end, scientists are still baffled by the nature of "consciousness" and what it really is.
I'm not sure how any experiment could prove to your satisfaction that consciousness is a natural phenomenon. While the total removal of the brain would certainly result in an apparent lack of consciousness, it seems that you would claim that the consciousness continues to exist elsewhere. However I think that chemical and physical changes to the brain have a significant and corresponding effect on consciousness, and this is borne out by vast amounts of experimental evidence.
My point is that our consciousness exists before we are in a physical body and after our body dies - that is my opinion.
It doesn't even exist all the time while we are alive! I see no evidence that consciousness exists separate from a complex brain, nor any way that it could.
I don't believe the physical universe is separate. I think that this is all around us, all of the time. This "spirit".
What you've described is clearly separate. It doesn't seem to be made of atoms and molecules, the way the physical universe is. It doesn't seem to obey normal rules of cause and effect. Things just exist there, apparently eternally and unchangeably, but somehow (sometimes) correspond exactly to things in the physical universe, without measurably affecting them.
I also believe that there is a reason why we don't interact with them in an obvious way.
I'd be interested in hearing it.
zen nudist

While consciousness isn't fully understood, it appears in every measurable way to be a function of the brain. Physical or chemical changes to the brain alter consciousness in ways that are well-understood (and indeed, some that aren't). It is not at all clear to me how consciousness could continue to exist when the brain that caused it does not. To me, it's like saying that when you write off your car, that as well as some of the metal being recycled to repair other cars or to make washing machines, that there is a sort of intrinsic "car-ness" that lives on, independent of any matter or substance driving around in a car spirit world without an internal combustion engine. When talking about machines, the idea seems patently absurd. I consider it no less so when applied to life forms.
you are assuming things which are not validated. 1st off, the world you know is not reality but a dream world you mind invented to interpret reality.... it does not have to be an exact match and there is some slight experiencial evidence many have had to indicate that the shared world we are currently calling real is no such thing, but closer to the matrix, a shared invented dream world without substance outside itself. that you cause changes to people by monkeying with their vehicle used in playing this shared game is no suprize, but is not proof that the vehicle generates and sustains the driver of said vehicle....no more than damaging a car and making it run eradically and drive funny means that any damage to the driver exists... consciousness is a question mark no doubt about it...but all damage done to a brain does not seem to effect consciousness one bit, but it does effect memory, perception, thinking, or in other words the items one is conscious of.... while this is not easy to see, they are fundamentally as different as the dreamer is from anything he dreams.
funkyderek

zen nudist:
you are assuming things which are not validated. 1st off, the world you know is not reality but a dream world you mind invented to interpret reality....

In some sense that is true. The world we perceive is necessarily filtered through our senses, which are most likely not ideally suited to the task. That is why we need objective measurements to make sense of the world. For example, we can't see bacteria with the naked eye, because our senses aren't suitably evolved. We know they exist, however, because we have invented devices that can detect them, and convert the information detected into a suitable form for us to perceive.
it does not have to be an exact match and there is some slight experiencial evidence many have had to indicate that the shared world we are currently calling real is no such thing, but closer to the matrix, a shared invented dream world without substance outside itself.
What evidence exists of this? What evidence could exist for it? Only mistakes in the program or deliberate intervention by the programmers or other outsiders could give us any indication that we lived in such a universe. It will always remain a possibility as a perfect simulation would be completely undetectable from the inside.
that you cause changes to people by monkeying with their vehicle used in playing this shared game is no suprize, but is not proof that the vehicle generates and sustains the driver of said vehicle....no more than damaging a car and making it run eradically and drive funny means that any damage to the driver exists...
I'm not really sure what corresponds to the car or the driver in the above analogy.
consciousness is a question mark no doubt about it...but all damage done to a brain does not seem to effect consciousness one bit, but it does effect memory, perception, thinking, or in other words the items one is conscious of.... while this is not easy to see, they are fundamentally as different as the dreamer is from anything he dreams.
Well, firstly, dreams are entirely part of the dreamer. Unlike the objective reality of the waking world, our dream lives take place entirely inside our minds. Dreams are created by the mind - the brain - of the dreamer and exist only there. Secondly, I'm not sure how you can claim consciousness is unaffected by brain damage. Someone in a coma is not conscious. You can claim that the consciousness continues to exist somehow, but if it does, it is in a discontinuous way and leaves no trace on the actual human being who wakes up. Whatever that may be, it is clearly very different from what we normally think of as consciousness, and as there is no evidence that such a phenomenon exists nor any known way by which it could exist, I take the default position of assuming it does not.
Of course, if you believe reality isn't actually real, all bets are off anyway. Anything at all can be true, at any time, depending on the whim of the programmer.
Sirona

Derek
Since you raise the question of where our consciousness goes when seemingly "unconscious" (in sleep etc.), I can say that this relates somewhat to why I think we don't interact with the spirit world in an obvious way. I think that we are in physical bodies for a purpose and that purpose is development (you could call it a form of evolution, where all beings reincarnate until it is unneccessary for any beings to do so).
The fact is, we cannot know all of the answers, or the trials we live through here wouldn't be trials. It reminds me of the argument regarding Jesus - i.e. how could it have been a trial for him to die when he knew he was the son of God and would be resurrected? My argument is, it wouldn't have been.
Therefore, I believe that when we are asleep, we are not necessarily unconscious. Our dreams may sometimes be visits to the astral realm, or the times when we don't remember are simply that - times when we don't have a conscious memory of it. I still think it is there in our subconscious. When I had surgery, I remember that when I was coming round I was speaking to a being who was standing next to me, who disappeared in an instant....and I asked the nurse where he/she had gone. Then I felt embarrassed because she had seen me talking to myself. LOL. Now of course I accept that scientifically that may be explained as hallucination, but who knows? I certainly did feel very close to and familiar with the being I was talking to.
Sirona
I obviously don't have all the answers as to why and how, but I think I'm allowed to have my own views on the subject.
funkyderek

Sirona:
Since you raise the question of where our consciousness goes when seemingly "unconscious" (in sleep etc.),

That's not seemingly unconscious; that's unconscious. Unless your definition of conscious differs from mine. There's no need for consciousness to "go" anywhere, the same way as there's no need for the light to go anywhere when you switch a lamp off.
I can say that this relates somewhat to why I think we don't interact with the spirit world in an obvious way. ; I think that we are in physical bodies for a purpose and that purpose is development
I think we are our physical bodies, and the reason we don't "interact with the spirit world in an obvious way" or indeed in any measurable way is because that spirit world doesn't exist.
(you could call it a form of evolution,
Why not? You've already redefined energy, and you seem to be doing the same to consciousness.
The fact is, we cannot know all of the answers, or the trials we live through here wouldn't be trials.
That's not really a fact, unless you've already established that they're meant to be trials, and not just stuff that happens.
It reminds me of the argument regarding Jesus - i.e. how could it have been a trial for him to die when he knew he was the son of God and would be resurrected? My argument is, it wouldn't have been.
Agreed. (It's not really relevant to the post, but it's so rare for us to agree, I thought I'd mention it )
Therefore, I believe that when we are asleep, we are not necessarily unconscious.
Yes we are, except perhaps in the case of lucid dreaming or sleep paralysis.
Our dreams may sometimes be visits to the astral realm,
Visits in what sense? What exactly "visits" the "astral realm" and how does it get there? If the part that does this was somehow removed from the body, would you notice?
or the times when we don't remember are simply that - times when we don't have a conscious memory of it.
I've thought about that. I'm forced to concede that it's certainly possible that we are actually conscious at those times, but never remember it, even when woken up immediately, and even though studies of our brainwaves would indicate that we were unconscious. However, I have to favour what I see as the far more likely option - the reason that we have no memories of times when we appear in every way to be unconscious is that, at those times, we really are unconscious.
When I had surgery, I remember that when I was coming round I was speaking to a being who was standing next to me, who disappeared in an instant....and I asked the nurse where he/she had gone. Then I felt embarrassed because she had seen me talking to myself. LOL Now of course I accept that scientifically that may be explained as hallucination, but who knows? I certainly did feel very close to and familiar with the being I was talking to.
Of course it's possible that there was actually a being there. Again though, I'm forced to favour the most parsimonious hypothesis, that the reason you experienced unusual things when coming out of an anaesthetic, is that you were experiencing a well-known and well-understood phenomenon: halluncinating while only partially conscious.
I obviously don't have all the answers as to why and how, but I think I'm allowed to have my own views on the subject.
Yes you are, and I respect your right to believe whatever you choose, whether you believe based on evidence or whim, or anywhere in between. However, my view on the subject - which I assume I'm allowed to have too - is that I should point out when people's beliefs seem not to be based on good evidence. That's how I'd like to be treated.
zen nudist

Well, firstly, dreams are entirely part of the dreamer. Unlike the objective reality of the waking world

this is an assumption and part of the problem, you are assuming we have knowledge of the true nature of reality when that is not established by anything more than our own experience, which of course may be hallucination, self invented, or dream or matrix like shared virtual reality.
, our dream lives take place entirely inside our minds. Dreams are created by the mind - the brain - of the dreamer and exist only there.
perceptions exist entirely inside the mind as well, they are just a different form of dreaming, one which is assumed to be linked to something external rather than internal...but that cannot be demonstrated except by assumptions based on, you guessed it, more perceptions alone... unless you have found a way to know something aside from perceptions that I have never heard about... please share.
Secondly, I'm not sure how you can claim consciousness is unaffected by brain damage. Someone in a coma is not conscious. You can claim that the consciousness continues to exist somehow, but if it does, it is in a discontinuous way and leaves no trace on the actual human being who wakes up. Whatever that may be, it is clearly very different from what we normally think of as consciousness, and as there is no evidence that such a phenomenon exists nor any known way by which it could exist, I take the default position of assuming it does not.
you get hit in the head and get amnesia and have no recollection whatso ever of many years of living.... you were not conscious during that time because you cant remember now? sleepstates are not unconscious states, but since much of it is not transferred to recallable memory for whatever reason, it seems like it never happened, yet by many sleep studies it has been demonstrated that in shared reality space, sleeping people do infact dream as many as 5 seperate times each night usually with a 90 minute gap of random incoherent thinking inbetween which can be recalled qith great great detail if the subject is woken before it all exists short term memory buffers... coma patients often report being fully conscious and unable to respond, and even if they recall nothing later, there is no evidence that they were any different from our sleeping subjects..simply without recall ability later. as to evidence there are plenty of sleep studies done all the time.
of of the more famous researchers in this field is Stephen La Barge
funkyderek

this is an assumption and part of the problem, you are assuming we have knowledge of the true nature of reality when that is not established by anything more than our own experience, which of course may be hallucination, self invented, or dream or matrix like shared virtual reality.

Of course, in which case we can never know anything at all, and there is no point in discussing anything. For the purposes of this discussion, I will assume that reality exists. If you wish to challenge that assumption, you might like to start another thread, as without your accepting the existence of an objective reality, we can't have a fruitful debate.
perceptions exist entirely inside the mind as well, they are just a different form of dreaming, one which is assumed to be linked to something external rather than internal...but that cannot be demonstrated except by assumptions based on, you guessed it, more perceptions alone... unless you have found a way to know something aside from perceptions that I have never heard about... please share.
Again, this requires the assumption that there is a reality. We try to filter out the biases of our perceptions by using objective measurements.
you get hit in the head and get ; amnesia and have no recollection whatso ever of many years of living.... you were not conscious during that time because you cant remember now? ; sleepstates are not unconscious states, but since much of it is not transferred to recallable memory for whatever reason, it seems like it never happened, yet by many sleep studies it has been demonstrated that in shared reality space, sleeping people do infact dream as many as 5 seperate times each night usually with a 90 minute gap of random incoherent thinking ; inbetween which can be recalled qith great great detail if the subject is woken before it all exists short term memory buffers... coma patients often report being fully conscious and unable to respond, and even ; if they recall nothing later, there is no evidence that they were any different from our sleeping subjects..simply without recall ability later. ; as to evidence there are plenty of sleep studies done all the ; time.
Just as you can never know for sure whether we exist in a real, tangible universe or just a clever simulation, we can never know for sure whether another person is conscious. Here I go assuming again, but in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, I will assume someone is conscious if they seem to be aware of themselves and their surroundings, and will assume they are unconscious if they do not. We can monitor people's brainwaves when they are active and talking, again when they are asleep, under anaesthetic, in a coma, or knocked out and compare the differences to make reasonable guesses, but you can always declare someone to be conscious in some meaningless intangible sense that leaves no trace.
I don't quite understand what you're doing in this argument, or indeed in any argument. With your complete refusal to assume, the best you can hope for is to know nothing. Evidence obviously won't convince you, as there can be no evidence that you will not consider tainted by your senses.

What really happens to people when they die?

Share this