[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 32 KB, 400x565, Angel-of-Death.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4237003 No.4237003 [Reply] [Original]

What happens when you die?

>> No.4237021

>>4237003

You poop.

Then you return to the lobby to discuss your experience before jumping back in for a new game or go do something else.

>> No.4237020
File: 88 KB, 360x360, 1298830125257.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4237020

>>4237003

>> No.4237027

When I die, then death happens.

Let's face it, that's the only answer that is both right and provable.

>> No.4237026

>>4237003
You re-spawn shortly after

>> No.4237040

you will be reincarnated as a tweet

>> No.4237061

Cessation of brain function. Cessation of cardiac rhythm, resulting in cessation of blood flow, which causes blood to drain to the lower (dependent) part of the body. As >>4237021 stated, loss of bladder/bowl control.

>> No.4237086

>>4237021
>>4237061
Yeah that's the physical side of things. What I'm more interested in is what happens to your consciousness.

>> No.4237090

>>4237086

Nothing.

You're dead.

How is this hard?

>> No.4237097

>>4237090
Because there's no such thing as nothing. Can you imagine nothing? Do you remember how it is in the nothing?

>> No.4237104

>>4237097

No.

But that's the point.

It's nothing.

Is this still hard for you?

I mean, how can you hold beliefs for stuff that is impossible to understand, then blithley ignore a simple concept?

>> No.4237105

>>4237086
Consciousness? You lose it forever. You probably meant to say soul. A soul is like an unicorn, nobody really knows what happens to it when it dies.

>> No.4237115

that is nothing like a unicorn

unicorn blood can keep someone alive if they are about to die but they will live a cursed life

>> No.4237121

>>4237104
[Citation needed]

>> No.4237122

>>4237097
I don't remember how it was in the nothing, but then again I don't remember the first few years of my life, and I HAD consciousness then. Why does your logic look like a colander?

>> No.4237140

So what is "in the nothing?" Is that like the before time, in the long, long ago? We should ask the provider.

>> No.4237152

>>4237122
Did your consciousness come from nothing just like that?

>> No.4237156

>>4237121
the absence of citation is a poof of itself
no one has ever turned back from the dead to say something about it

>> No.4237159

>>4237156
That argument works both ways.

>> No.4237162

>>4237097
it seems that you have the greek problem of imagining 0 as a number

>> No.4237164

Consciousness is a yet-to-be-understood phenomenon that exists as a result of, and entirely within, the human brain. When the body dies and the brain ceases to function, the consciousness no longer exists, same as how programs running in memory no longer exist after you turn off your computer.

>> No.4237167

>>4237097
"Nothing" in this context implies there is no observer, not that there is "nothing to observe".

>> No.4237168

>>4237159
so you think that you are something more than simple atoms arranged in an odd way?

>> No.4237170

You lose the ability to regulate bodily functions and Your body is consumed by micro organisms.
I'm a fisheries major, but to my knowledge we don't know what happens to conciseness after one dies. I think its a general assumption that your conciseness is terminated?

>> No.4237177
File: 11 KB, 267x189, 322234..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4237177

>>4237170
>TERMINATED

>> No.4237182

>>4237168
Yes.

>> No.4237189

You poop

>> No.4237193
File: 30 KB, 367x451, haha1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4237193

>>4237182

>dualism

>> No.4237196

>>4237104
That's the point when it gets weird. There is no conceivable way to experience, even imagine "nothing". The only approximation we have is a lack of something in relation to something else. Nothingness for us is simply a lack of contrast. There is "nothing" in the fridge of the typical physics graduate. There is "nothing" in the interstellar void. But in actuality, both of those "nothings" are quite full.

Total "nothingness" is impossible. Cannot exist, lol.

One scary idea is that we can only experience. Anything else is just a non- option. We will not experience a lack of experience, or "nothingness". So what are the alternatives?

>> No.4237211

>>4237193
I don't have a clue what you're implying.

>> No.4237216

>>4237182
there is your problem
just do some biology/neuroscience/physics
and you'll see that the universe does not allow for souls and afterlife

but it allows for respawns :>
damn i love quake2

>> No.4237264

>>4237216
>you'll see that the universe does not allow for souls and afterlife
What makes you so sure?

Here's my theory: you are "sure" of it because it makes you feel like you know what the whole game is about. You need this feeling of solidity in order to sustain some sort of balance in your existence. The reasoning really acts as a shield. There's nothing I could say really that would make you reconsider. You are, however, wrong. You make assumptions without really understanding what you're claiming.

It is your word against mine. Also, if you are going to involve fields of study you could at least provide some references to your claims.

>> No.4237265

Also, by the very definition, after life there can be no afterlife. If you still have life then you're obviously not dead enough.

One thing you should consider, you who yearn for eternal life. Eternity is a really fucking long period of time. Are you sure, totally and completely sure you'd WANT to exist for billionsandbillionsandbillionsandbillionsandbillionsandbillionsandbillionsandbillionsoflaughingwhore
sandbillionsandbillionsandbillionsthegameandbillionsandbillionsandbillionsandbillionsandbillionsandb
illions years, only to realize you're not even one percent of the way to the end? And never will be?

I think not.

Trust me faggots, oblivion may actually be a mercy. And, in a very Terry Pratchettesque manner, could be an indication that the Universe actually gives a fuck or two about our well-being.

>> No.4237281

>>4237265
>Eternity is a really fucking long period of time.
I almost fell for it.

>> No.4237294

>>4237265
Actually, the only way I imagine an eternity of existence could in any way be bearable, is to periodically lose all memory and start completely over.

You know, with a blank slate.

Kind of like a newborn baby.

Yep. But if you'd lose all of your memory, with no way to bring it back, how it would be different from just dying?

>> No.4237314

>>4237264
it's funny because as i see it you're just afraid to die, and are hiding behind souls and stuff
i bet you believed in god at earlier time and you probably still believe in some supernatural stuff like astrology or ghosts

more to the point, i can't tell you just one or few links where you can go and start think the way i see the universe

it's like you're telling me teach me japanese with a link
it just doesn't work this way

see some lectures on neuroscience i think this would be enough

>> No.4237317

>>4237264

>what makes you so sure?

The findings of neurobiology. I don't identify with any of what you wrote and honestly it seems like projection. My comclusions derive from what is presently known about the brain, nothing more.

>> No.4237332

You face God's judgement.

>> No.4237333

>>4237294
then you get into a philosophical trap
are you really you when your memories change
cause twins are completely the same except for their memories

>> No.4237344

>>4237196
Do you remember what you felt before being born? That's what you will feel after you die.

>> No.4237347

>>4237317
>>4237216
>The findings of neurobiology.

Do not have anything to say about souls at all.

>> No.4237348

Hey, OP. Have you ever had surgery that required anesthesia? You know how you just lose consciousness, and have no awareness or memories or thoughts until you wake up at the end of the procedure?

It'll be like that, except you will never wake up. There will be nothing, and you will not perceive the nothingness.

>> No.4237352

>>4237333
Nahh, not really. They have the same genes, genes can and do express themselves in different ways. And I'm not sure about the genes part either, errors happen all the time during transcription. That's why we get cancer, derp.

>> No.4237356

>>4237211
She's implying that her irrational beliefs make her smarter than your possibly more rational beliefs.

>> No.4237385

>>4237348
>>4237344
Well, yeah, that's the point. You cannot perceive the nothingness. So that's out of the way, we can't really be bothered by that part.

What its like to fall asleep and never wake up? For that matter, what its like to wake up, after never having fallen asleep? I know you can just brush it off and go "derp, its not like anything, it just isn't". The first part, that is, the second is just birth. But c'mon, don't you guys find this just a little bit... weird? Or a fuckton of weird, tbh.

And I'm not particularly scared by this concept and looking for crutches. As I said, eternal life is a pretty terrifying thing to consider, if you give it enough thought.

>> No.4237390

>>4237314
>you're just afraid to die
It's only natural to be afraid of the unknown. Everyone is. The correct approach is to gradually decrease the fear and accept it as the natural cycle you are a part of.

>and are hiding behind souls and stuff
I have no idea what you're on about, but it sounds wrong altogether.

>it's like you're telling me teach me japanese with a link
>it just doesn't work this way
Hey, I only asked for references. I have a pretty solid understanding of science (not neuroscience exactly), but this isn't really a question of science. Science can deal with the physical world. In fact it does so remarkably well - this is because it's the right tool for that job. It does precisely that. Now as soon as you want to use that tool on something that's beyond it's reach, it simply doesn't provide sufficient data to answer something accurately. It's like trying to pump air into tires with a hammer. It doesn't work. This is why new tools need to be developed in order to gain a deeper understanding into who we really are. With respect to people's intuition, I have no idea where they get the ego to just draw conclusions straight from thin air.

>> No.4237391
File: 169 KB, 390x290, 1326138992873.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4237391

>>4237348
good one
how did i not remember to give this example
and avoid like 4-5 responses

it's the same when you go to sleep and have no dream

>> No.4237396

>>4237347

Because souls don't exist. Science does not explicitly refute creationism either, but we all understand that the implications of evolution conflict with creationism. Same with spiritism and neurobiology. Our understanding of cognition is that it is carried out by the brain, and cannot continue to execute outside of a brain or sufficiently brainlike machine.

>> No.4237418

>>4237391
You always, always have dreams. Your brain goes into overdrive when you're sleeping. You just don't remember them by the time you're fully aware, because the sensory input is stronger, overwrites your brains auto-feedback.

I'm on paroxetine right now. A side effect is that I'm more aware of my dreams, and they are easier to recall. I honestly can't remember a night when I haven't had at least a few vivid dreams. Fuck, some of them were even lucid, but that is probably just a combination of waking up and imagination.

>> No.4237431
File: 77 KB, 640x480, 1300834839077.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4237431

>>4237418
>You always, always have dreams.
nope

dreams kick in the REM phase

>> No.4237449

>>4237396
>Because souls don't exist.
No, because neurobiology studies something other than souls. Going by your "logic", astronomy doesn't study mitochondria, therefore mitochondria don't exist.

>Same with spiritism and neurobiology.
Well, no. Neurobiology works within a particular epistemological and metaphysical framework. It has nothing to say about alternate frameworks, such as those which include "spirits".

>> No.4237458

As Dan Dennett would say, we have a perfectly explanatory scientific theory of mind that does not involve non-material "souls" of the religious sense, so who cares? There is no such thing as the study of "souls" except for neurobiology, the study of human behavior, and so on.

>> No.4237467
File: 119 KB, 696x468, troll-senses.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4237467

>>4237449

>> No.4237476

>>4237431
If it ain't REM, it ain't really sleep, ain't it? The rest just goes by faster than an instant, there is no experience of discontinuity.

I know that is probably how you see death. No arguments there, really. Just a lot of baffled curiosity. We can't experience it. No discontinuity. And yet it will never end. Does not compute.

Hence the question that's been driving me nuts. What it will be like, to go to the point between dreams, and never wake up?

>> No.4237480

>>4237458
>As Dan Dennett would say, we have a perfectly explanatory scientific theory of mind

Dan Dennett would be wrong, then. There is no scientific theory of subjectivity.

>> No.4237511

>>4237480
Oh. Ok. Who cares? There likely never will be anything stronger than what we have.

We know that subjective experience is the result, more or less, of physical processes in the brain. We can take apart your mind piece by piece by taking apart your brain. Take out one piece of the brain - you lose short term memory. Take out another part - you lose the ability to do basic arithmetic. Take out another part - you lose the ability to recognize faces. It is incredibly stupid to think that the mind survives after brain death, and there's no need for any other explanation besides to explain how qualia arise from materialistic causes. I think that last question, the so called "hard question", will likely never be answered, and it really doesn't matter.

>> No.4237528

>>4237511
>it really doesn't matter

Ahh, the cop out of people who got too frustrated with not getting a satisfactory answer. I feel your pain, mang.

Protip, absolutely nothing really matters once we're dead, and we're all dead in the long run, which is not to say we shouldn't give a fuck about what happens before. Take it from that.

>> No.4237548

>>4237449
No other frameworks are valid, and metaphysics is a euphamism for magic.

>> No.4237569

>>4237528
It's not a cop out. It's an admission that part of what you want is likely outside of scientific inquiry.

Still, most of the important questions have answers, which sadly are far from universally accepted.

>> No.4237579

>>4237569

Science deals with the real. If it is outside of scientific inquiry, it isn't real.

>> No.4237595

>>4237569
yeah like 99% of women believe in bullshit
and just have smalltalks about NOTHING

<derail>
can we consider such beings as conscious?
not the magic, soul type of conscious but the type where you function as normal human being
cause most of them seem mentally impaired

>> No.4237598

>>4237579
If you want to define it like that, ok. Whatever. That's in contradiction with the conventional definition of "real", though.

An example is that there are galaxies which can we see now which in the future will leave our light cone. They will never again be observable. They will be outside the realm of future scientific inquiry, but they will still be "real" in any conventional sense.

>> No.4237606

>>4237569
Up to this point, almost nothing of what people deemed out of the range of scientific inquiry was in fact outside of scientific inquiry.

I cringe to say this, but have some faith. Preferably in future, as of yet unborn people who won't trust faith, but will trust their intellect more than the preconceptions people like us will inevitably pass on to them.

After all, the progress of science is really the process of dying out of people who hold preconceived notions about how shit works, to make way for new people, with slightly better notions.

>> No.4237612

>>4237579
>If it is outside of scientific inquiry, it isn't real.
That's a highly moronic and presumptuous statement.

>> No.4237613

>>4237579
yes a soul is not real
if something can not be measured
and has no effect whatsoever than just making you feel safe
well guess what it's not fucking real

it's the same like saying when i close my eyes aliens are all over the place but when i open them they suddenly disappear
it just makes no fucking sense

>> No.4237619

>>4237598

Galaxies are not ghosts. We did not conceive of galaxies in myth long ago and then vindicate them with science. That never happens. Our discoveries are always unknown unknowns, things our ancestors never imagined.

>> No.4237620

>>4237606
Dunno. I'll stay by my stance that "how do materialistic things cause qualia" will likely remain forever answered beyond the kind of knowledge we already have (e.g.: this part of the brain creates the ability to recognize faces). I'll admit if someone proves me wrong with evidence and a good scientific argument. I'm not sure if I would recognize it currently though - I don't know what kind of falsifiable things you could make.

It's like asking "How do magnets work?". It's another question that may remain outside of science forever.
Feynman 'Fun to Imagine' 4: Magnets (and 'Why?' questions...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

Why do magnets work the way they do? Because the evidence says so.

Why do these particular materialistic processes create consciousness and qualia? Because the evidence says so.

>> No.4237628

>>4237612
I am a different person and I agree that there are important meaningful questions that cannot be attacked by scientific inquiry. Sadly, we will probably never know the answer to them. Most of them fall into the subject of philosophy.

>>4237613
I am pretty sure you're the one not making any sense here.

>> No.4237625

>>4237612

That does not preclude it from being true, as evidenced by the fact that it is. It may strike you as moronic, but then you believe in ghosts.

>> No.4237641

>>4237620

Qualia are a manufactroversy. Unique experiences don't pose a problem for neuroscience as it's exactly what we should expect from separate, slightly different brains. It's just spiritualists inventing false problems for neuroscience the same way creationists invent false problems for evolution. Creationists also believe in souls and deny neuroscience, so really you're pretty much in their camp as it is.

>> No.4237656

>>4237620
Thanks for the vid, will watch.

Really, what you're talking about is what metaphysics SHOULD be about. If the morons with their souls and Gods didn't hijack it first.

Now that we don't have a legitimate word for it, nobody takes a question like "wtf exactly IS electricity, and why the hell does it do what it does" (or those magnets, miracles, I tell you) seriously, even though it is a legitimate question, and could be a goddamn important one at that, for all we know. With our dismal record of predicting future technologies, singularity may be hidden in the Simpsons reruns.

>> No.4237654

>>4237598
yes but this is something that you already know about
an analogy would be if someone steals your phone
you don't see it anymore but this doesn't mean that it was not there

but if someone that never had a phone (like a person before 1000 years) says someone stole my phone then he's certainly talking bullshit

btw i really think that this guy is trolling

>> No.4237658

You fly with the eagles and kick that mexican in the death!
Give me some FUCKING YU ES AND A MOTHERFUCKING EYYYY

tl;dr when people die they become mexican hating redneck.

Such is the nature of death.

>> No.4237662
File: 6 KB, 266x190, andrewryan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4237662

A live body and a dead body contain the same number of atoms. structurally there's no discernible difference. life and death are un-quantifiable abstracts. Why should I be concerned?

>> No.4237684

>>4237641
>Qualia are a manufactroversy.

It is apparent you don't even understand the qualia problem. You are making yourself look like a complete ass.

What you have done is to adopt (and blindly continue to obey) a self-imposed dogma: science is the only thing that matters and nothing is anything more than what it functionally is physically.

I will remind you that you do not know this for certain and that to assert that you do is ten times more foolhardy than about half of the assertions that Christians make.

What you must learn to embrace is an unwavering skepticism in all matters that only vanishes in the face of mathematical proof, at which point it is replaced by an intimate and deeper understanding.

>> No.4237688

>>4237684

Courtier's reply.

>> No.4237691

>>4237641
>Creationists also believe in souls and deny neuroscience, so really you're pretty much in their camp as it is.
How the hell did you get that from what I wrote?

>> No.4237699

>>4237691

I misunderstood which side you were on I think. Your post did not make it clear.

>> No.4237711

>>4237688
And you're even getting that wrong.

"Courtier's reply" refers to an assertion that you are not qualified because you have not become familiar with the established results in the field.

What I am saying is something completely different:
As a scientist, stick to science.
Apply the scientific method to scientific questions.
When there are questions that science cannot attack in any way whatsoever, recognize this, do not waste your scientific effort on them, and do not make any assertions regarding them at all. Period.

>> No.4237727

>>4237711

No, wrong. It does apply here. You're talking about magical spirits living in/controlling the brain from afar. Let's not lose sight of that. You're claiming evolution discredits creationism, but that neuroscience cannot discredit the belief that consciousness can exist apart from the brain? That is non-negotiably false. I am not inviting debate here, you either correct your mistaken beliefs or remain wrong.

>> No.4237752
File: 4 KB, 126x85, 1298819628865.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4237752

>>4237711
if you want to learn
google lectures on neuroscience, read/watch whatever for at least 2 weeks
then come back and start talking about spirits
<----- for the time being

>> No.4237757

>>4237727
>You're talking about magical spirits living in/controlling the brain from afar.
Putting all kinds of words in my mouth.

>You're claiming evolution discredits creationism
More of the same. You're a pill.

>but that neuroscience cannot discredit the belief that consciousness can exist apart from the brain? That is non-negotiably false.
What you call "consciousness" has not been properly defined in this discussion, so I will use more exact terms. The capacity for subjective experience is not a matter that can even be approached scientifically. It is non-negotiably undecidable and it is not a scientific question. Science deals with falsifiable hypotheses. Claims about the capacity for subjective experience of anything other than oneself are non-falsifiable. End of story.

>I am not inviting debate here, you either correct your mistaken beliefs or remain wrong.
And finally we see that you will make a pathetic scientist if you can never adjust your hypotheses based on the acquisition of new evidence. Perhaps you are right that to debate with you would provide little to no good for anyone.

>> No.4237774

>>4237752
And now we see you using the "Courier's response" that you made reference to earlier.

You know what, I'm done with you.

I can only hope that some God does exist so that by some miracle you will become a decent scientist and put forth something of value instead of taking on futile debates and throwing tantrums.

>> No.4237783

>>4237774
Courtier's response **

The joy of typos

>> No.4237793

Think of it this way OP:

You know that whole A.I. over time computer singularity slowly more intelligent shit? Well, think of the earliest robots developed by people. Generally they are single functioned and hardly intelligent. They function based on a huge number of if then statements etc. and still remain extremely unintelligent. Do these robots have a soul? No. Is their "consciousness" really anything more than chains of reactions programmed based on their stimuli? No. Now imagine over time little bit after piece is added to the robot's intelligence with each succeeding model. Eventually the if then statements and other programmed codes become so numerous and complex that the robot is a functioning mechanical "creature". Say it is multi-purposed and is a maid-esque robot. It cleans the house, washes dishes, etc. based on its reaction to stimuli and chain of codes that it runs through.

continued...

>> No.4237795

>>4237793
continued
Fast forward even further into the future. The latest robot model is so complex that it understands that it exists and is "conscious", but still this self-awareness and meta-cognition is still at its heart a running program. When you turn off that program it ceases to exist; it is terminated. The consciousness was simply a program, much like if you were to fry a computer the program would be erased and cease to exist. Additionally, somewhere along the line was a soul created? No. The robot just slowly became more complex.

Human consciousness, while extremely different from that of computer programming, can be compared evolutionary. Unicellular organisms can easily be compared to these early robots. They take in molecular stimuli, through binding to enzymes, chains of reactions occur which caused the organism to do something, be it chemical signals to translate proteins etc. These little guys over time evolved into multicellular organisms with differentiated tissue. Some of these tissues were nerve tissue. Nerves at their heart are really just electrical and chemical signals causing chains of reactions from the cellular level (as in those unicellular organisms we arose from) to a tissue level to an organ level.

continued..

>> No.4237799

>>4237795
Such complexity and sheer amount of "processing power" is essentially what our consciousness is--a incomprehensibly huge number of reactions to stimuli which create our "program" of human consciousness. We're essentially an evolutionary singularity where the "programs" that used to be more basic (think bee functioning in a beehive) have become so complex that they begin to understand themselves and are able to perform meta-cognition. When the processor and memory are destroyed (our brain) so is the program. It ceases to exist and with it our consciousness does. At its heart the idea of a soul is the spawn of a vast number of reaction to stimuli that formed a personality, ideas, etc. And while I realize that this is a great simplification and neuronal networks function entirely different from that of computer programs, it's an idea that I was taught some while ago and really helped me understand this matter. Hope this wasn't too tl;dr.

>> No.4237876

Neither Science nor Religion knows what happens when you die, why don't you an hero and telepathically communicate with us to tell us, OP.

>> No.4237880

>>4237876
I wholeheartedly approve of this post.

>> No.4237902

I'm not sure exactly why this is hard to understand.

Death is the end of life, and as many of us know (some of us are in denial) when you die you no longer have a consciousness.

Furthermore, anyone who says, "nothingness is impossible because it doesn't exist," just proved they understood the concept of nothingness. This isn't a difficult concept, either. If you didn't know what "nothingness" was, then you couldn't reference it in a sentence. I can't experience how a computer calculates, but I'm using one right now and I know it calculates.

Awareness is a requirement of consciousness. Dead people are anything but aware. Brain activity is a requirement of thought. Dead people (it's not immediate, but if you want to argue this please show me a fully decomposed brain that's capable of brain activity) do not have brain activity. Without consciousness or thought, then you are thinking of "nothing."

When you die, then you are dead. That's the only conclusion than can logically follow.

>> No.4237938
File: 87 KB, 469x428, 1301519489528.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4237938

>>4237902
not OP
but just feel like being a troll

so my argument is that by that time the souls is already out of the body
and i believe and QM and your soul can influence the quantum probability in your brain

i speculate that dark matter is a soul like substance and it's all around us
it makes the galaxy turn the way it should

sage because this thread is not science and is not worth bumping