Thanks for your enlightening response, mojo. After that lengthy argument, I am ready to give up my evil atheistic ways and make Jesus my lord and saviour (whatever that means). 
Please join us in the religion forum for some interesting religious discussion.
I’m with skeptic,
mojo, send me a list where I can sign up…oh and I hope it’s one of those that ask you to have 10% of your wages withdrawn in order to support your religion to spread the word.
On a serious note…
Theoretically stated:
Yes, this is one basis for the definition of Consciousness. But there are many different beliefs and criterias for what consciousness entails, and not a single one of them has been proven to be right - so we should be careful about how hard headed we get about our beliefs of consciousness.
You should also keep in mind that animals and insect minds are as big a mystery as human minds if not more so, so it is an unweighted argument to compare one to the other in terms of consciousness.
Theoretically stated:
Hmmm…you know I have never met anyone in my life that thought consciousness consisted solely of thinking that one is. Even Descartes idea
of existence and consciousness was not that simple.
Theoretically stated
I’m confused, I thought this was about consciousness, not about consciousness entailing existence. I never argued that a thing that cannot think does not exist. I can’t think of anyone who was arguing that. Even Berkeley who was an extreme idealist believe that only thoughts and God existed yet there were things that did not think that existed, but they existed because they were parts of our mind made up by either us or God and were always being perceived (by either us or God).
Theoretically stated:
Huh? Okay, if you say something can intertwine, that entails that it has the potential to and the potential not to. But then you say that it necessarily has to - which is contradictory to the first statement. Thirdly, you say that the two can go without each other which contradicts the second statement. Either I’m right or I will patiently read about your explanation about two things being restricted together, but going without each other while existing, potentially, as intertwined.
Theoretically stated:
Listen, you may have the understanding that after death one will never again become conscious in any way, but I don’t. Furthermore, I already answered your question in my previous post where I said that if I assume your understanding to be true, then consciousness still doesn’t entail a things non-existance. Where I went into the atoms circling and everything else.
What’s your take?
A table exists even though it has no life. So once a human dies, it still exists but in a inanimate form.
ALso, theoreticality, the electrical impulses in our brains do have different patterns I believe. And the difference in thought has to do with language. As any linguist will tell you, everyday every human utters many sentences that have never been uttered before. So just on that basis, thoughts will be just as diverse.
The body dies but the spirit continues to exist.
buddha it is so easy to make a conjecture but to isolate the conjecture with a progression of understanding and logic is very hard. If your premise is that god exists and that is all then this is not the place for you. The definition of Philosopher is “a lover of knowledge” what you love is to molest those that you envy. I am with the others on this one. You interrupt others thoughts and hard work with your transient glimpse of why we are all here.
that goes for you too mojo
I think one needs to define existence before they can answer this question. I think most philosophical arguements are due to differing definitions of ambiguous words.
If you think along the lines of I think therefore I am, then your existence does end with death because you can’t think after you are dead.
If you think that to exist, you just have to be there, detectable, then your existence doesn’t end with death.
I think this discussion is really asking, ‘Is existence physical or mental?’
Personally I think it’s physical because mental awareness, thinking and consciousness are just tools for the physical body in much the same way as muscles and organs like the liver are. I think that saying existence ends with death is like saying that existence ends with complete paralysis. I think people are their bodies, not their brain’s thoughts or consciousness.
Fair enough, the brain controls all the muscles and other bodily functions, and is essential for life where other bodily functions aren’t, but it only really co-ordinates them. You can still twitch when you’re dead. And without a brain to tell the parts of the body what to do, they just stop and cells stop reproducing giving the illusion that it is decaying quicker when its just that the cells aren’t being replaced because they aren’t being told to.
Existence does not end with death, much like a stone always exists even though it is inanimate. It just changes form, but always exists.
Although Descartes said ‘Cogito ergo sum’, he still was pretty much a religious man. Now what do we know about death? Descartes was absolutely sure no-one could betray him about his existence, because it would always be HIM who was betrayed. Yet, that’s all he wanted to say. He wasn’t talking about death- if he would, he could only say that death is unthinkable. It doesn’t solve any problems, though.
So if Mojo says that God exists and that after life we go either to heaven or to hell, is there any argument which actually PROOFS she’s wrong? To go short, in Descartes’ opinion death is unthinkable and therefor we can’t say ANYTHING about any existence after we died, or at least not with any certainty. Not from this point of view.
I think this discussion should consider another point Descartes made. He split up the world in ‘Res cogitans’ and ‘Res extensa’. Does that distinction exist? For if we can answer this question, we might know the answer to the main question. Is there any psychical world, apart from a physical world? Or, with Berkeley, we can switch sides: Is there any physical world, apart from a psychical world?
Descartes was a great man and started a revolution but he was fundamentally wrong. “I think therefore I am” has a logical error to think is a product of being since we have no example of nothings that think or rather thinkers that aren’t. Descartes tried to start off all his logic with logic and that is the problem. The true beginning of any logic is an axiom or axioms. An axiom is something that is assumed and is the focus of many debates about logic. Even if one uses another logical proof as their axiom that proof has an axiom and eventually you will get to an axiom that is simply assumed. Descartes used I think therefore I am but he could not prove that he thought to anyone else. No one can prove that they think to anyone else nor can anyone prove that they can exist. To think is trivial and is such a shady word that it brings itself into question. How much do you think? How do you think? What is thinking? I could always say that what we call thinking is simply another part of the universe’s decay much like atoms decaying into simpler and simpler atoms and the universe cooling to cooler and cooler temperatures.
It is simply anthropomorphic to assume that thinking is seperate from the physicality of reality because it is impossible to attain any level of thought without the physical processes. The goal of so many religions and people is to achieve a oneness in which they do not categorize or differentiate and one of the biggest things they do is realize that they cannot seperate their mind from their body and that there is no distinction between them. If you do not understand this I would recommend reading the latest interpretation of the pali texts that support buddhism and I don’t mean the ancient translations. There is a new translation that is very enlightening and no I am not buddhist but others can always give me knowledge. I guess what I would like to export to this conversation is that humility is so important in realizing your own truth. I don’t preach that I have and I don’t know whether it is possible but it certainly got me closer. It has helped with my physics and I can imagine and abstract things that have never taken form before.
Death is simply the end of one’s life not a redo. The universe is the process and we are simply a part in its own realization.
Buddism a yearning for Nirvana ( where all desire of existance and worldly good is extinguished, and thesoulis absorbed into the deity )
Life as punishment, existence construed as error, error thus as a punishment - a moral valuation. I’d rather them cure depression through magnetic nerve stimulation to left temporal lobe, and rest in the fact that when i die i’ll know-longer be a counscious entity.
In terminology “soul” refers to the substantial bearer of presentations and other activities which are based upon presentations and which, like presentations, are only perceivable through inner perception.
doubtmore
To go short, in Descartes’ opinion death is unthinkable and therefor we can’t say ANYTHING about any existence after we died, or at least not with any certainty.
How is it were able to “think” metaphysical, or feel theres another all non-empirical realm. In the past with little idea of what the phenomenal was, and little to no scientific method- they made it up in not what’s after death.
Magnius
The brain being a material thing that dies along with the rest of our body, leads me to believe that our consciousness comes to an end as well. But again, that doesn’t necessitate that the consciousness will never exist again.
The only way i can conceive consciousness existing again after death is through scientific theory, which is instead of continous expansion as the universe is, if the universe through gravitys pull stops expanding then the big crunch happens(science though is throwing to many concepts about that im sceptical about ie multi-universe’s). Thus its possible for time to go backwards. Thats unless i understood you wrong.
Umm,
first off what’s with so many people spelling my name as Magnius lately? Just curious, not going to berate you or anything. It would be nice if people could take the time to spell my name correctly.
Umm stated:
Well your above statement is assuming that consciousness is based only on a material level, which hasn’t been proven yet. But should you happen to be right, that atoms which constituted your consciousness prior to you dying, may one day become a part of the agglomerate of atoms of someone elses consciousness, possibly affecting the consciousness in ways that were characteristic of the old you. Which also answers your next statement…
Remember, its just one idea. I mentioned that one because it is one idea I keep open about and which, coincidentally, repeats itself in conversations between myself and others. For many more ideas on how consciousness could continue you may want to pick up some starter Metaphysics books.
What’s your take?
I must refract my statement on buddism; for i have found it untenable with the christian moral faith-which lead me to atheism.
This to me is a question of theology through mental phenomena which is littered with uncertainty’s. It’s all a mind and body thing, ok the latter we gain sentation’s and perception’s which in a fundemental way are kinaesthetic sensation’s of the mind. But when im asleep it can be said truly not to exist.
But when we depart from life we are know longer a subject to the laws of science, as for mental laws “the soul” on the other hand in ower life constitute’s the present which as is alway’s immortal. The mental consciousness constantly excites ideas which are always held truth-so as we cannot know what death is like, immortality is a residing truth. For death i feel insofar as i can metaphysically think, we will exist no longer as counscious entity’s(but that’s unthinkable) i think!
I don’t understand how you can even begin to speculate on what happens in and after death.
I find this interesting, Umm,
What do you mean by “we”? If you’re postulating a human entity that survives physical death, you are engaging in pure conjecture. The only thing we know exists after a human dies is the body, and that is most certainly subject to the laws of science.
I find Corliss Lamont’s humanistic arguments to be the most compelling regarding this topic. Here are a few points he considered:
- Our conscious experiences are conditioned through our internal and external experiences which is solely interpreted through our brain.
- Serious damage to the brain has demonstrated significant intellectual impairment.
- Weariness of the body also impacts weariness of the brain (e.g. observe sleep and fatigue processes).
Our intellectual experience (soul) is not always powerful enough to handle fatigue or even brain damage, so a complete shutdown of our processing center makes the dissolution of our experience seem most likely.
My little brother told me this morning that a cockroach can survive for 9 days without its head before it starves and that this man managed to keep a chicken alive for several months after cutting off its head. Pretty amazing huh?
I think the brain is just for co-ordination (and thinking through actions with logical thought and emotions etc for the more aware animals) which isn’t always so necessary. Or at least no more necessary as any other organ.
But it is natural to think that the brain is so necessary for life because it is what makes u aware that you are alive.
Seems thats wrong though…
I believe you missed my point entirely. I never said the brain was essential for “life,” but merely our interpretations of consciousness or intellect. Now for us to have a soul in which our intellect is strong enough to embed after complete brain shut-down, then how come the soul isn’t strong enough to maintain our intellect when we encounter serious brain damage?
Just an added note, a cockroach brain is spread throughout their body. Their heads just hold a little of the nervous system while most of the brain is spread along the belly.
Mike the chicken from the 40’s is an amazing story. I believe that scientist noticed that the head was not completely cut off and the brain stem remained intact which contains most of a chicken’s reflex actions. Not to take away from Mike’s miraculous feat, but do you think he was the same chicken intellectually after he got most of his head whacked off? 
I believe my apparent missing your point entirely was due to the fact that there is a significant difference in our respective beliefs.
I don’t believe in the soul. In any definition of the word, in western or eastern ideologies. I think our interpretations of consciousness or intellect are soley functions of the brain. So to me, if those functions are necessary for life, the brain is necessary for life. However, I just think its the most essential organ for life because it tells the body to be alive and how to do it. And thats why I believe life stops when the brain stops. I see life as completely physical.
You seem to believe that life depends on the soul and that the soul, or intellectual experience, works with the brain in some way? And it can act as some sort of back up for maintaining our intellect but it is not strong enough to do it once the brain has been slowed or damaged? And so once the brain ceases to function in death, experience after death seems not possible?
I can see your point, but I just don’t believe in that line of thought.
While I respect differences in beliefs, I’m not sure exactly what you are trying to counter.
I never said anything remotely resembling any personal beliefs in which life depends on the soul. If you re-read everything I have posted within this thread, I am using examples which refute dualistic psychology or beliefs that our conscious intellect can function beyond it’s source which is the brain. This is sometimes referred to as a “soul.” I’m arguing and have been the entire time that there is no such thing as a supernatural “soul” because of how dependant our intellect, personality, and consciousness is on our brain … which you seem to be in agreement with.
I think we agree a lot more than you think we do, so I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.
I saw your arguement, but I just assumed that you were applying the question of the thread to your beliefs that were similar to a theory, rather than using the theory and showing that within that framework, existence doesn’t go on after death by disproving the soul. I’m sorry for my misinterpretation. So yes I do agree with u!