Afterlife proof?

[Fylobatica]

Considering that we've not successfully isolated the specific part of the brain that produces consciousness,

Are you sure you've checked your sources correctly?

http://www.iflscience.com/brain/scientists-pinpoint-consciousness-switch-responsible-awareness/

seriously, you people are hilarious.

The more you're told to learn about the evolutive history of the brain, as it was previously told

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128311.800-a-brief-history-of-the-brain/

the more you refrain from it because you have to defend your personal wish to make your brain pop up from itself all of your memories, personality, whatever for no reason, also without giving specific details of how this kind of disembodied survival in the space would be possible, considering that our mind is a super delicate machinery that can get in a total mess just after a simple stroke or an aneurysm.

Thing is. as the single specific areas of our brain born for social interaction, sense of self, awareness, etc. die after our heart ceases to pump oxygen into our bloodstream, consciousness does the same. Because it heavily relies on a physical network of complex connections that eventually get dismantled and destroyed once death sets in.

It's not that difficult to understand that the concept of afterlife is complete bogus that was invented by caveman that were afraid of death.
However, since many mistake their wishes for the actual truth, I cannot wait for my digestive system to pop out in the 'afterlife' to learn how to digest whole supernovas. Yeah sure, buddy

 

[Malice1]

Are you sure you've checked your sources correctly?

http://www.iflscience.com/brain/scientists-pinpoint-consciousness-switch-responsible-awareness/

seriously, you people are hilarious.

The more you're told to learn about the evolutive history of the brain, as it was previously told

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128311.800-a-brief-history-of-the-brain/

the more you refrain from it because you have to defend your personal wish to make your brain pop up from itself all of your memories, personality, whatever for no reason, also without giving specific details of how this kind of disembodied survival in the space would be possible, considering that our mind is a super delicate machinery that can get in a total mess just after a simple stroke or an aneurysm.

Thing is. as the single specific areas of our brain born for social interaction, sense of self, awareness, etc. die after our heart ceases to pump oxygen into our bloodstream, consciousness does the same. Because it heavily relies on a physical network of complex connections that eventually get dismantled and destroyed once death sets in.

It's not that difficult to understand that the concept of afterlife is complete bogus that was invented by caveman that were afraid of death.
However, since many mistake their wishes for the actual truth, I cannot wait for my digestive system to pop out in the 'afterlife' to learn how to digest whole supernovas. Yeah sure, buddy

Despite that, we still dont know if the brain is the only thing that generates conciousness. We cant be jumping to 100% certainties about this just yet.

 

[Fylobatica]

Despite that, we still dont know if the brain is the only thing that generates conciousness. We cant be jumping to 100% certainties about this just yet.

So in a similar fashion would we need other than our ears to listen, our feet to walk, our lungs to breathe?

 

[Malice1]

So in a similar fashion would we need other than our ears to listen, our feet to walk, our lungs to breathe?

You'd need something other than your brain that can generate conciousness in order for it to survive your death. As far as we know there could be something else that generates conciousness besides our brains, outside of our bodies. Would you be blind, deaf, and dumb? Probably.

 

[Fylobatica]

You'd need something other than your brain that can generate conciousness in order for it to survive your death

Of course, and that's why "afterlife" is not possible by any means.

As far as we know there could be something else that generates conciousness besides our brains, outside of our bodies.

...what does this have to do with our personality, memories, etc.?

 

[Malice1]

Of course, and that's why "afterlife" is not possible by any means.


...what does this have to do with our personality, memories, etc.?

Some scientist believe that even electrons contain consciousness. If this is true then some conscious part of you would survive the brain death. Meaning you wouldn't be completely gone.

You will lose your memories, personality, etc but a part of you would live on even if you are blind, deaf, and dumb. Again this is if there is something outside of the brain that can infact generate your consciousness and insert it into a vessel or medium. We dont know that yet.

 

[Fylobatica]

You will lose your memories, personality, etc but a part of you would live on even if you are blind, deaf, and dumb. Again this is if there is something outside of the brain that can infact generate your consciousness and insert it into a vessel or medium. We dont know that yet.

The brain is not a receiver, rather a 'creator'.
That's why I bothered posting that article about the origin of consciousness in our brain before

 

[Malice1]

The brain is not a receiver, rather a 'creator'.
That's why I bothered posting that article about the origin of consciousness in our brain before

There may be recievers/creators of consciousness outside of the body that grabs consciousness for us and continues to generate it. There may be other creators of conciousness aside from the brain but i get what your saying. Your implying that consciousness cannot be recieved only created therefore you believe our conciousness cannot be transferred. We dont know that either. Some would argue with you that it IS a reciever by the way. Just how accurate is that article? Anyone can make those claims, how do we know its 100% fact?

 

[Fylobatica]

There may be recievers/creators outside of the body that grabs consciousness for us and continues to generate it. There may be other creators of conciousness aside from the brain but i get what your saying. Your implying that consciousness cannot be recieved only created therefore you believe our conciousness cannot be transferred. We dont know that either. Some would argue with you that it IS a reciever by the way. Just how accurate is that article?

Consciousness might get transferred in the near or far future, but by scientific means.

http://www.minduploading.org

The problem with what you're implying is that our brain with all its anatomical, chemical and developmental features has absolutely no part in supporting or generating our perception of reality, which has been proven wrong, and if you knew a bit about neurochemistry and the phylogenesis of what's inside our cranium it would be 100% clear why.

We wouldn't need a brainstem, a subconscious, neurochemicals, all the anatomic regions that specialized over the course of evolution in certain tasks, just something way more simple. Maybe something of the size of a tennis ball, or even an atom.

 

[Malice1]

Consciousness might get transferred in the near or far future, but by scientific means.

http://www.minduploading.org

The problem with what you're implying is that our brain with all its anatomical, chemical and developmental features has absolutely no part in supporting or generating our perception of reality, which has been proven wrong, and if you knew a bit about neurochemistry and the phylogenesis of what's inside our cranium it would be 100% clear why.

We wouldn't need a brainstem, a subconscious, neurochemicals, all the anatomic regions that specialized over the course of evolution in certain tasks, just something way more simple. Maybe something of the size of a tennis ball, or even an atom.

Hmm..ever heard of nanotechnology? We havent been able to apply the concept just yet but the idea is that we could perform all of those complex functions at a molecular level, which is actually alot smaller than a tennis ball. So all of those things you listed in the brain could be squeezed into something the size of an atom or smaller. Smartphones are a good example of this.

 

[Fylobatica]

So all of those things you listed in the brain could be squeezed into something the size of an atom or smaller.

Yes, they will, in the future- - as we previously said.

 

[Malice1]

Yes, they will, in the future- - as we previously said.

Whos to say evolution hasn't already created such a thing and we just haven't found it. If its on the nanoscale then it would be pretty hard to find.

 

[Fylobatica]

Whos to say evolution hasn't already created such a thing and we just haven't found it. If its on the nanoscale then it would be pretty hard to find.

It's not about finding it... The problem is the actual size of our brain, not 'what could it be if it was 200x times smaller'

 

[Malice1]

It's not about finding it... The problem is the actual size of our brain, not 'what could it be if it was 200x times smaller'

Im implying there could be transmitters or creators of conciousness the size of nanos that function similar to our brains that we have not found yet. Those things would function without our bodies and would be capable of transfering and generating our consciousness. In other words it could be happening at a nano level and we just dont know it!

Anyway i doubt thats the case. I'm guessing theres just nothing rather than atom like transmitters transferring our conciousness from one vessel to another at a nano level where we can't see it happening.

 

[Fylobatica]

Im implying there could be transmitters or creators of conciousness the size of nanos that function similar to our brains that we have not found yet. Those things would function without our bodies and would be capable of transfering and generating our consciousness. In other words it could be happening at a nano level and we just dont know it!

I get what you mean, but if you remember we were talking about the actual need of a super-sized brain (if compared to a nanoscale) in order for our bodies to function properly. That's what as human beings we have now, regardless of external transmitters, etc.

 

[Malice1]

I get what you mean, but if you remember we were talking about the actual need of a super-sized brain (if compared to a nanoscale) in order for our bodies to function properly. That's what as human beings we have now, regardless of external transmitters, etc.

I remember reading somewhere that the current size of our brains and bodies are a requirement for self awareness, cognitive thinking etc. The complex functions of our brains exhaust a lot of energy. Bigger organisms need that energy to move their bigger bodies. Theres no room for complex functions with them. Smaller organisms im not so sure of but yes our brain/body size is probably needed to perform complex thinking.

Therefore we probably wouldn't be self aware anymore if our consciousness were transfered at a nano level. I'm assuming conciousness has no size so transfering it to something smaller shouldn't be a problem but you most likely need a human brain (or something similar) to be self aware again. Which is my main point.

Maybe our consciousness is transmitted at a nano level and then transferred into something that resembles the human brain. Meaning reincarnation may be a thing. So far we have yet to see anything but the human brain perform complex thinking (Well some animals are very smart) though. However, one things for certain if we do survive brain death somehow then we will be something completely different. You wont be you anymore. Your personality, memories etc would have to redevelop in something else. Meaning you'd be someone or something completely different...

 

[Fylobatica]

Maybe our consciousness is transmitted at a nano level and then transferred into something that resembles the human brain.

Our consciousness begins to form as soon our brain reaches a certain stage of development after being conceived from our parents, nanotransfers from outer space are a bit off the top, considering also that hereditariety plays an important part in determining who we are.

 

[Malice1]

Our consciousness begins to form as soon our brain reaches a certain stage of development after being conceived from our parents, nanotransfers from outer space are a bit off the top, considering also that hereditariety plays an important part in determining who we are.

Yeah, a dozen of centuries ago if you told someone about how the internet was possible they'd say it was "over the top" as well. The nucleus is an organelle that performs functions. Just look at how small that is. The transmitter doesn't even have to be nano sized. It could be somewhere in deep space and we just dont have telescopes that can reach far enough to see it. By the way the transmitters would have to be like atoms or electrons that can survive in both space and outer space. That is assuming conciousness can be transmitted at all.

I suggest you check out the immortal jellyfish Turritopsis dohrnii. It is biologically immortal. Meaning it keeps coming back as long as its not eaten. Similar concept. They come back but their memories etc are different and redeveloped.

Well, thats probably the best argument your going to get. Nothing else really makes sense. I keep going because honestly i need to explore all possibilities before i ctb. I dont want there to be nothing even though that seems to likely be the case. Maybe take a leap of faith? Probably will.

 

[Fylobatica]

Yeah, a dozen of centuries ago if you told someone about how the internet was possible they'd say it was "over the top" as well

the internet and technological discoveries have nothing in common with the autonomous development of our biology.

I suggest you check out the immortal jellyfish Turritopsis dohrnii. It is biologically immortal

Yes, and as it is shown by daily experience, we aren't

 

[Malice1]

the internet and technological discoveries have nothing in common with the autonomous development of our biology.

Thats not the point. You would have thought it impossible centuries ago. It isn't. You think biological transmitters (at the nano scale) is over the top. Some molecules already act as signal transmitters, just not for consciousness (that we know of).

 

[Fylobatica]

Thats not the point. You would have thought it impossible centuries ago. It isn't. You think biological transmitters (at the nano scale) is over the top. Some molecules already act as signal transmitters, just not for consciousness (that we know of)

... centuries ago? What are you talking about?
Our brains started to develop millions of years ago from single celled organisms.
Whatever, you desperately want your beliefs to be true by cherry picking notions as you please, it's pointless debating.

 

[Malice1]

... centuries ago? What are you talking about?
Our brains started to develop millions of years ago from single celled organisms.
Whatever, you desperately want your beliefs to be true by cherry picking notions as you please, it's pointless debating.

When i said centuries I was referring to the internet, i forgot to specify. I believe that theres a slight possibility that something else happens after death aside from decomposition (i already explained what). You dont. We"ll leave it at that.

 

[Fylobatica]

When i said centuries I was referring to the internet, i forgot to specify. I believe that theres a slight possibility that something else happens after death aside from decomposition (i already explained what). You dont. We"ll leave it at that.

of course, nobody can explain something that does not exist.

 

[Malice1]

of course, nobody can explain something that does not exist.

Look you yourself even admitted that nano organelles and conscious transfer might be a thing in the future. I dont know why you wouldn't be open to the possibility that such a thing may already exist and was created through natural, biological processes but whatever.

 

[Fylobatica]

Look you yourself even admitted that nano organelles and conscious transfer might be a thing in the future. I dont know why you wouldn't be open to the possibility that such a thing may already exist and was created through natural, biological processes but whatever.

I have wasted about 50 posts about why since the very beginning, read them if you like. Bye

 

[Malice1]

I have wasted about 50 posts about why since the very beginning, read them if you like. Bye

I read them already, and im not convinced with 100% certainty sorry. Nobody should be 100% certain without proof.

 

[Lisa]

Im implying there could be transmitters or creators of conciousness the size of nanos that function similar to our brains that we have not found yet. Those things would function without our bodies and would be capable of transfering and generating our consciousness. In other words it could be happening at a nano level and we just dont know it!

Anyway i doubt thats the case. I'm guessing theres just nothing rather than atom like transmitters transferring our conciousness from one vessel to another at a nano level where we can't see it happening.

That makes the most sense

 

[Lisa]

... centuries ago? What are you talking about?
Our brains started to develop millions of years ago from single celled organisms.
Whatever, you desperately want your beliefs to be true by cherry picking notions as you please, it's pointless debating.

Malice has clearly explained that your position that there's 100 percent no afterlife is faulty.

That's impossible to say 100 percent. He has shown that clearly.

And now you bow out, of course.

No need for you to get upset simply because you are protecting your belief system.

 

[Lisa]

I have wasted about 50 posts about why since the very beginning, read them if you like. Bye

 

[Lisa]

I read them already, and im not convinced with 100% certainty sorry. Nobody should be 100% certain without proof.

That's exactly the point that Fylobatica is missing