It would only be a sort of speculation by the same nature as that with 'god' if someone were to ponder whether something happens.  Advancements in the physical sciences, as well as modern, rational philosophies (the few that there are), indicate that a body, with no vital functions and no brain activity defines death.  All thought is consciousness-dependent.  Consciousness is a function of the brain.  If there is no brain activity, there is no consciousness.  Any activity, thought, or observation of phenomena requires consciousness.   Therefore, without concsciousness, nothing can be perceived to happen.This premise is misleading in the manner in which the author attempts to base his conclusion on it.  I will also demonstrate, though in a sense he is right, that this condition he mentions is not a problem.  Consciousness, whether it be that of man's or that of a cat's or that of a bird's, as I said, it is the function of the brain.  The brain is substantial, and readily visible were one to open a person's head (though I am by no means imploring you to do so).  An eyeball is also substantial, and visible, touchable, and even tastable.  However, it has the function of vision, which also is insubstantial, since it is an action.  In the same respect, consciousness is also an action.  For more proof, take the concept 'walking'.  Walking is a function of the legs. The legs themselves are substantial, but the action of 'walking' is not, even though you and I readily recognize someone walking.I am an Objectivist, so to be clear, I am not promoting the theory that thought is matter or that consciousness is matter as a materialist would.  I want to make that explicit, even though I think it is obvious that, from the preceding statements, I am not a materialist.  Moving on.Nor does this conclusion follow from its single premise.  Has Max given any examples or some other evidence of consciousness breaking the "rules" of physics, if you will?   I was not aware that it could. Rather, the opposite is true.  The brain, as an existent, is bound to the metaphysical axiom of Identity, that A is A.  The brain has a definite nature if it is to exist.  The corollary of the Law of Identity is the Law of Causality, that is, any entity acts according to its identity and is so limited.  For instance, if I insert seeds into my head, my brain will not make popcorn.  If I apply force to a ball on a flat, level surface, it will roll everytime.  It will not explode or display, in HD, Spiderman 2.  "What if it is windy" you ask?  Then, the combined force of the moving air molecules that constitutes the event of 'wind' will thus roll the ball in the direction with the wind.As I previously stated, consciousness is an action.  Since any action is of a specific nature and belongs to an entity of a specific nature, it cannot break any "rules", or rather, laws.  Don't believe me?  Simply test it in reality and see what you discover. How did we come to know this?  If I follow your grammar, are you saying that "we" are all in one body?  Or, did you mean "we know for sure... that we cannot be here in [these bodies] forever"?How am I, for instance, "in" a body?  My brain happens to be inside my head, but it is still of my body.  My body is not some kind of "suit" or "vehicle" as mystical religions postulate.  Although I would not so recklessly state that I would "completely cease to exist"; indeed, my corpse would still exist, assuming I was not burned to death or vaporized by a nuclear bomb.  It is only that, the essence of myself would cease to exist.  By which, of course, I mean that the mental contents of my brain have dissipated and the synaptic functions which cause the phenomenon of consciousness have ceased.  It would indeed be permanent, though, especially if I were burned to death or vaporized.  I would ask, after our brain had lost its ability to function, how could it not be permanent?In regard to your thoughtless question (indeed), the answer is simple: consciousness is hardly, if at all, present.  As I said many times, consciousness is a function of the brain.  A very simple, undeveloped brain has a very simple consciousness, while I do not profess to be an expert neurologist, the simplicity of a baby's consciousness is easily observable.  Therefore, as the brain develops and gains complexity, its conciousness also gains complexity.  As we can also observe with the development of children, one's conciousness is not mature until 10-13, I would say.  Simply, it comes from the brain that the child had all along.Logic does?  My Logic text book does not mention such a phenomenon.  Does a logical deduction suggest that?  Which expression of logic have you made that suggests that?  You offer no basis for this assertion.It probably would be different, yes.-Matt

It is well established that people who have near death experiences, experience many of the same things (white light, etc.). There are even scientific explanations for these experiences as they can be replicated via brain stimulation.

One of these is cessation of experiencing the flow of time. If you can no longer experience time, then can a few seconds seem like an eternity? Is heaven nothing more than a brain chemical high combined with a loss of time experience shortly before our brain completely shuts down? 

As for an "afterlife", I'm content in the knowledge that humanity will live on, hopefully for the better, and that the molecules that make me, will eventually spread to every living thing on the planet. 

I think it's because they like the thought that they will get to see that loved one again when they are 'reunited' with them in death/heaven.  In otherwords, not only is the deceased there, but they are going too!  I've always thought people insisting that they were in a better place was nothing but selfishness on their part. 

 Personally, I've had a lot of people close to me pass away in the past 5 years and I really do feel empty because of it so I can see how a theist would want to grasp hope in this situation.  However, I've since started telling myself that when a good person dies it is a loss for the world and therefore it's okay to be sad.

Personally, I would have to say that I have absolutely no idea.

 However, I like to toy with the idea that after we die, the atoms and molecules that make us up are spread throughout the universe, possibly attaching to another life form at some distant time in the future, therefore starting a new life with absolutely no memory of anything that has happened. Maybe it is like going to sleep, and then waking up again in a new life. If not, I'm perfectly fine with accepting the reality that one life is plenty, and it's all we get. 

Even if reincarnation does happen, the Big Rip or some other catosrphic event will stop this (unless the "infinite regression theory" is true and we all end up being reborn again). It's a fun idea to play with, but I don't know if I take it too seriously.  

I think I'll close my eyes and it will be llike falling asleep.

Except I won't wake up. 

 Either 1.) We cease to exist and experience something like a really good night's sleep

or

2.) We find out we were wrong, get sent to hell, run for office on a platform of firm but fair torture and free beer, get elected vice-chairdemon of the 3rd level of hell and spend eternity listening to "I told ya so"

 Personally I'm going with #1.

Unfortunately many people don't have to wait till death for permanant loss of being 'consciousmess '.

Alzhemiers and other brain diseases/injuries lead to loss of 'self'.

It's really quite simple brain damage = loss of self

brain death = no self at all

 Don't really need to be a neuro-scientist to work that out

 

If the universe can create life, we can say it is somehow alive, not because it can think and perceive itself but because it is full of life.

That being said, your life, my life, are like atoms in a sea of life. When we die, all that is gone is our ability to perceive our bodies.  Most of the things we know will continue to exist. For example, I know who Napoleon was. I don't think that when I die people will forget Napoleon. All that will be gone will be the memories of my life, my consciousness, and some of those memories will not be different than those of people who lived the same events, and history may record many of those events. 

Notice that I didn't say my body will be gone when I die. See, the atoms that form your body right now are not the same atoms you had a few years ago. Most of the matter that forms your body is gone. Perhaps being used by other forms of life.  Death simply stops your body from recycling itself. 

It was said before that the Buddhists got it right, and I agree, up to a point. Death isn't becoming one with everything. We are already one with everything. 

-- Lucretius; Book 3, Part 3, Paragraph 2.

I like that. I think I'll quote it if you don't mind... though you realize the 90mph is kenetic energy which gets displaced when hitting the wall.

What will happen to the belief in the soul when technology becomes capable of creating an android like Data in Star Trek, or Sonny in I, Robot (the movie)??? Wil fundies say they aren't alive because they lack a soul? Or will they admit these androids are alive? If they admit they are alive, then they'll have to admit that something can be alive without a soul. 

The belief in the soul is already in trouble today. Imagine how much trouble it'll have fifty years from now.

If you're asking my personal opinion, I used to believe that my consciousness would simply cease to exist. Now, however, I would have to say that the most likely result would be that my soul would depart my body, go about its business for a while, and eventually reincarnate in a different body. I won't try to convince anyone that I'm right because, quite frankly, if our positions were reversed, I wouldn't believe it either.

Edit:

Imagine seeing you here. 

But, how do we know that souls wouldn't be able to incarnate into sufficiently advanced machines?  After all, it seems to me that our bodies are just complex biological machines right now anyway. 

 

"Empirical observation." I could be wrong, and I ackowledge that possibility. As I've already stated, I don't intend to try to convince anyone that my opinion is correct.

If you believe that the idea that a soul can exist is irrational, I invite you to participate in this thread:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/10469

I agree with the post above, and the many posts before. Why should we even be inclined to think that somehow, somewhere, we as a human race are special enough to end up in some sort of alternate dimension? is the human race in general so self absorbed, so egotistical that we must somehow be special enough to live forever and ever in the land of OZ? Its delusions like THIS that allow suicide bombers to rationalize what they do, and think theyll get rewarded for their actions. Thank you, religion, for making life more shittier than it could ever possibly be, and demoting it to the realm of a simple "endurance test" till the day you ascend to your eternal hellfire.

We cease to function. To believe anything else would require belief in a soul, and with all the scientific understanding of how the human body works... what would a soul be, seeing as our thoughts, feelings, senses, and emotions are all bodily functions?

Oh, and, for the "what if we're all wrong" crowd... I hope I don't have to go to Heaven, and be forced to look upon the almighty smighter. Even if it were all real from old testament to new, and the deity had a lobotomy inbetween causing the utter 180 turnaround on the personality (from vengeance against all sin to forgiving it all...)... it doesn't change what was done.

 If Hitler rose from the grave and started saving people, I wouldn't kiss his feet either...

The promise of glory in heaven is essentially the exact same thing as the promise of fortune fame and power for serving a megalomaniac like Hitler. A "being" who sought order through striking out with vengeance upon non-followers... floods... plagues...

In New Hampshire their motto is Live Free or Die. This comes from the revolution, when they chose to risk their lives over following the order and rule of the "rightous king"... It's a good motto, and I think with a little free thought it applies here...

Spend eternity chained to the oppressor, or burn in hell knowing you at least stood by your own values... I'll burn, thanks. Spending eternity at a genocidal maniacs feet would be more torture than fire imho.

 

 

Let me throw another log on the fire, and suggest a thought for fixing what I think is broken:

 Angels in Heaven...

We all know in ancient times "sky" and "heavens" were often used interchangably, but the assumption is that ancient persons thought that this mystical "heaven" resided in the sky. Let me offer another suggestion:

 Nearly all ancient religions were astrological in nature; Judaism included I believe...

The angels are to stars as the heavens are to the sky. The nights sky is filled with twinkling bright objects which under the right conditions have halos. It was popular, especially in ancient rome and greece, to depict anything flying, floating or just in the sky, with wings. Piece these things together and you have stars drawn as men with wings all of a sudden.

Ancient persons didn't have television or radio. They sat out and night and stared at the stars. They had thoughts and ideas, and in those times epiphanies were often attributed to things involved in an activity being conducted at the time of the epiphanie... this was common, as if men thought themselves incapable of having their own thoughts... They would often blame their thoughts on fish, or hunting game, etc..

Putting two and two together again, we see men attributing epiphanies to stars in the sky, and it was also not uncommon in such times to say the thing involved in the activity one was engaged in, was not simply the reason for the epiphany, but that the thing actually spoke to ones self... to say that the stars, or if my hypothisis is correct, the angels, spoke to ones self...

 

If it is such, that the angels are stars, and heaven is the sky, and not some complex alternate dimensional whosywhatsit... then Judaism was as astralogical in nature as ancient Roman Mythos... and just about everyone believed that they would join the angels in heaven when they died.

 

I know that doesn't bring much to answer the question, but it's semi-related, and I thought it was an awesome epiphany of my own. It just struck me one day, a few years ago, and it seemed so damned obvious I wondered why I'd never seen it before... It just wraps everything up so neatly, and makes it all so "normal".

 

Why not? If consciousness is only a function of the brain, then why is it so hard to believe that you just lose consciousness when you die? You lose consciousness every night when you sleep and go through a slight time warp, since there is a whole period of time you never experience due to your being unconscious.

Why can't death just be unconsciousness? But eternal instead of just over night?

Seems perfectly reasonable and non-scary to me.