Whats on the other side?

[falcon9393]

what do you think is in the after life? or is there even one?

jus wondering about it myself so i wana know what theories are out there!

[iNow]

Blood flow stops, energy no longer needed, body deteriorates, our "existence" remains only in the minds and memories of others who have not yet died.

 

If we're lucky, we get put into the ground, become worm food, and grow into a plant, and then we pollinate other plants and bees and butterflies come visit us.

 

That last one was a bit koombaya for me, but we basically just stop. The heart stops and the brain dies and voila... all we are is dust in the wind and a fond or angry memory to someone who remains.

[Rev Blair]

I think iNow has it about right. We rot and the circle continues, or we get cremated and it continues a little faster, or we give our bodies up for research and students make jokes about our corpses. At least I hope they do...I'd hate to be dissected by somebody who was all serious.

[Phi for All]

If consciousness lives on after the body dies, I would imagine you'd have to get used to a whole new set of sensory mechanisms. The one thing we do know is that the body stays here to rot. Your consciousness would have no body, thus no eyes and ears to see and hear.

 

Perhaps you'd be able to "sense" another disembodied consciousness. That'd be a great sense to have in that situation. Communication would necessarily be different as well. Much of communication is context, and the context you're used to doesn't exist for you anymore.

 

Since no one ever communicates from the other side (at least not in ways we can measure) it's either not possible or not necessary. Maybe your consciousness has the whole universe to zip around in so you don't give a lot of significance to beings trapped in 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension. Perhaps, after melding minds with a universal consciousness, communicating with mere living humans is downright painful and barbaric.

 

I like to think we're in a larval state and have more growing to do. But I don't like most explanations for an afterlife because they often allow people to give up on this life. I believe there is consciousness after body death but I try to make sure to challenge myself to learn all I can while I have this body strapped to my consciousness.

[antimatter]

Blood flow stops, energy no longer needed, body deteriorates, our "existence" remains only in the minds and memories of others who have not yet died.

 

If we're lucky, we get put into the ground, become worm food, and grow into a plant, and then we pollinate other plants and bees and butterflies come visit us.

 

That last one was a bit koombaya for me, but we basically just stop. The heart stops and the brain dies and voila... all we are is dust in the wind and a fond or angry memory to someone who remains.

 

Agreed on all of it!

All the people I know bash me for having such a 'materialistic' view on life, and I just tell them that it's how it works...

[Ladeira]

I can't, but I can't figure out how would we simply disappear... of course our body will be dead. But our feelings? Isn't death time to rest... to be free?

I don't have an opinion about after life. But however, someday we'll know (or not, if we become just food for plants)...

[Gilded]

My view of this is pretty much the same as Phi's. I've come to think it's really quite impossible to even remotely grasp any form of existence or consciousness that might follow death. More and more of our "experience of reality" is being attributed to chemical reactions. Emotions, memories, all senses... and suddenly you're stripped of it all. It's quite confusing to even think about it.

[ecoli]

as beings who are only able to draw and extrapolate on being alive and existence, to imagine what could it "be like" to not exist is impossible. This is why we embrace ideas about the afterlife. We have reference point, in which we could imagine turning off all our senses and consciousness and stop existing.

[the tree]

as beings who are only able to draw and extrapolate on being alive and existence, to imagine what could it "be like" to not exist is impossible. This is why we embrace ideas about the afterlife. We have reference point, in which we could imagine turning off all our senses and consciousness and stop existing.

On top of this, all of our language and ability to understand things is based on the world we know and our physical senses. Describing anything but that is completely beyond what we're equipped to do.

[YT2095]

there is insufficient data to answer that question with any degree of accuracy.

 

 

Answer: Unknown.

[john5746]

what do you think is in the after life? or is there even one?

jus wondering about it myself so i wana know what theories are out there!

 

As others have said, there is no evidence for anything after death, so there are no theories, just beliefs. My belief is that I highly doubt there is anything after death, but if there is something of "me" that survives death, I doubt even more that it will contain any memory from this existence or being an "I". That is the best heaven I can imagine.

[ydoaPs]

as beings who are only able to draw and extrapolate on being alive and existence, to imagine what could it "be like" to not exist is impossible.

 

I have over a dozen billion years of experience in not existing. I think my next go at it will be pretty much the same.

[PhDP]

We're complex assemblages of simple molecules. When we die, we just get back at being a bunch of simple molecules. IMO, the notion that we could somehow do better than other lifeforms and 'survive' our death makes absolutely no sense, it goes beyond wishful thinking, it's downright arrogance.

 

And I think most people haven't really given much thought about how to reconcile the concept of life after death with our current knowledge of how the universe work. It seems to me that most believers just, well, believe. But unlike the question of the existence of god(s), where we really can't apply science directly to provide positive or negative evidences, we can produce evidences that life after death is impossible, or, even worst, that the whole concept isn't internally coherent.

 

For the sake of argumentation, let's be very generous and assume that there's some other substance, some other laws that would allow our essence (i.e.: soul) to survive after death. I must point out that we have absolutely no good reason to think so, but let's assume that it would be possible. Even after conceding this major point, the whole concept of living outside our body creates so many problems...

 

#1. Essence. We live under the illusion that we have an essence, a consistent 'self'. In reality, we're dynamical systems, I'm not the same person right now that I was 5 days ago, and I won't be the same in 5 days. If I die, WHAT exactly will survive ? Let's put this another way, if I get hit on the head very hard, and my personality change as a result. My 'self' will change, the chemical balance in my brain would be different, the way I interpret my memories, et cetera. If my soul can't 'save' this change, then it's not really related to me, but if it does, why would it leaves other similar changes like those produced by Alzheimer's ? Why would our soul follow our evolution as biological organisms only in some circumstances ? Because we know so much now about how the brain work from a mechanical perspective it's hard to imagine how we could survive the destruction of the structure. And it's why I say we're arrogant, nobody would be crazy enough to claim that a computer could continue to work when it's destroyed, because we all know the computer is a complex structure, once the structure is gone the properties emerging from the structure have to disappear. And even if for some reason the information contained in the structured could be save, the question remains, which information, and when ? Is our soul affected by illness, is it affected by genetics, if not, then this soul has little to do with who we are.

 

#2. Love, joy, sadness, desire, fear, all the things that define us are in fact related to our status as mortal animals. They are related to our need to survive, both within our body and through reproduction. These emotions and states would have no meaning if we were immortal souls, in fact, why would an immortal soul love his child ? Why would an immortal soul have a feeling which existence was made possible only by death ? We're animals, most of the things we do are typical of animals, we eat, sleep, love, hate, those things only make sense because we die. What would be left in that immortal soul ? Would this immortal soul continue to be defined by our concerns as animals ? That would make little sense. Yet, if it's not the case, what would be left ?

 

#3. When have we acquired our souls ? Do cells have souls ? If they do, are we composed of gazillions of souls ? And even if we accept the notion that cells have souls, at which point a multicellular organism would get his how soul ? Where do we need to register ? Or some promethean fairy have decided that some years ago, we humans could survive death ? I'll admit this argument is the weakest, in a sense, because many people would invoke the existence of mystical entities. But I think it does show that we need to get pretty far away from rationality and science, and we need to accept as true many things to believe in life after death.

 

In short, I don't believe in life after death, and I don't even think it's possible to formulate this concept in a coherent matter. However, most people want so bad to believe in some fairly tales that I'm quite sure they'll invoke some sort of "it's beyond our understanding" argument. Even so, I think they would have to deal with my first two arguments.

[thedarkshade]

What's on the other side?

 

Just make sure you won't miss anything on this side!

[CarolAlynn]

I think it is a rather depressing view that nothing comes after death. My perfect after life, i would be a ball of floating energy capable of travel throughout the universe. My only real hope is that when im dead i get to continue to follow the story of earth, i would be very disapointed if i didnt get to see where humans and all the rest of life on earth goes in the next couple million years.

 

I also think that all life forms have an energy which continues, how it continues or where it goes i have not a clue.

[Gilded]

My only real hope is that when im dead i get to continue to follow the story of earth, i would be very disapointed if i didnt get to see where humans and all the rest of life on earth goes in the next couple million years.

 

It's difficult for me to think what I'd "want" to do as just a consciousness that could nevertheless observe the universe somehow. Mainly because curiosity or any interest in basically anything whatsoever is so strictly an evolutionary trait that's apparently just derived from our brain. Of course, as a human I sort of wish that curiosity would be some sort of "cosmic instinct" that any conscious being possesses. Agh, this is starting to make my head hurt.

[Taktiq]

I'm not going to propose any theory because based on the data that exists about the afterlife (none or purely speculative), it would be just as retarded as how I run around telling people that Tool and Radiohead are overrated as bands. To state that it's unlikely anything happens after we die, beyond our bodies rotting and whatnot, is arrogant at best. Like I tell my mom...no one knows what happens until they die so quit telling me I'm going to hell.

 

My personal view is whatever you believe, is what will happen. PROVE ME WRONG!

 

We're complex assemblages of simple molecules. When we die, we just get back at being a bunch of simple molecules. IMO, the notion that we could somehow do better than other lifeforms and 'survive' our death makes absolutely no sense, it goes beyond wishful thinking, it's downright arrogance.

 

And I think most people haven't really given much thought about how to reconcile the concept of life after death with our current knowledge of how the universe work. It seems to me that most believers just, well, believe. But unlike the question of the existence of god(s), where we really can't apply science directly to provide positive or negative evidences, we can produce evidences that life after death is impossible, or, even worst, that the whole concept isn't internally coherent.

 

For the sake of argumentation, let's be very generous and assume that there's some other substance, some other laws that would allow our essence (i.e.: soul) to survive after death. I must point out that we have absolutely no good reason to think so, but let's assume that it would be possible. Even after conceding this major point, the whole concept of living outside our body creates so many problems...

 

#1. Essence. We live under the illusion that we have an essence, a consistent 'self'. In reality, we're dynamical systems, I'm not the same person right now that I was 5 days ago, and I won't be the same in 5 days. If I die, WHAT exactly will survive ? Let's put this another way, if I get hit on the head very hard, and my personality change as a result. My 'self' will change, the chemical balance in my brain would be different, the way I interpret my memories, et cetera. If my soul can't 'save' this change, then it's not really related to me, but if it does, why would it leaves other similar changes like those produced by Alzheimer's ? Why would our soul follow our evolution as biological organisms only in some circumstances ? Because we know so much now about how the brain work from a mechanical perspective it's hard to imagine how we could survive the destruction of the structure. And it's why I say we're arrogant, nobody would be crazy enough to claim that a computer could continue to work when it's destroyed, because we all know the computer is a complex structure, once the structure is gone the properties emerging from the structure have to disappear. And even if for some reason the information contained in the structured could be save, the question remains, which information, and when ? Is our soul affected by illness, is it affected by genetics, if not, then this soul has little to do with who we are.

 

#2. Love, joy, sadness, desire, fear, all the things that define us are in fact related to our status as mortal animals. They are related to our need to survive, both within our body and through reproduction. These emotions and states would have no meaning if we were immortal souls, in fact, why would an immortal soul love his child ? Why would an immortal soul have a feeling which existence was made possible only by death ? We're animals, most of the things we do are typical of animals, we eat, sleep, love, hate, those things only make sense because we die. What would be left in that immortal soul ? Would this immortal soul continue to be defined by our concerns as animals ? That would make little sense. Yet, if it's not the case, what would be left ?

 

#3. When have we acquired our souls ? Do cells have souls ? If they do, are we composed of gazillions of souls ? And even if we accept the notion that cells have souls, at which point a multicellular organism would get his how soul ? Where do we need to register ? Or some promethean fairy have decided that some years ago, we humans could survive death ? I'll admit this argument is the weakest, in a sense, because many people would invoke the existence of mystical entities. But I think it does show that we need to get pretty far away from rationality and science, and we need to accept as true many things to believe in life after death.

 

In short, I don't believe in life after death, and I don't even think it's possible to formulate this concept in a coherent matter. However, most people want so bad to believe in some fairly tales that I'm quite sure they'll invoke some sort of "it's beyond our understanding" argument. Even so, I think they would have to deal with my first two arguments.

 

 

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." ~ Einstein

 

or as I tell my daughter...

 

"Never lose your imagination because if you do, life won't be fun anymore. Now, let's go swing!":-p

 

there is insufficient data to answer that question with any degree of accuracy.

 

 

Answer: Unknown.

 

 

Pfft...data. The OP asked what do you think? Not if there was any data.

[PhDP]

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." ~ Einstein

 

But you forget that he also said Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms., and I could not agree more

 

IMO, we're much too gentle with those kind of beliefs.

[Glider]

as beings who are only able to draw and extrapolate on being alive and existence, to imagine what could it "be like" to not exist is impossible. This is why we embrace ideas about the afterlife.

I think this is true, to an extent.

We have reference point, in which we could imagine turning off all our senses and consciousness and stop existing.

Have you ever been given a general anaesthetic? I think that's what it must be like to die; the non-volitional loss of consciousness. You can feel it coming and you can't fight it, but it's not unpleasant if you don't fear it.

 

If I want to think about what happens after death, I just think about what happens after the anaesthetic (nothing; no sense, no affect, no memory. Nothing). I think the only difference is that with the anaesthetic, I'm still here to reflect on the experience. More specifically, I knew that I would be back when they put me under.

 

If that is in any way what it is to die and to be dead, then I can't fear it. I think it is only the idea of its permanence that makes death different from a GA and, if there's anything to fear, it is the idea of that permanence. Fear, and the suffering it causes, are as fragile as the consciousness that generates them. Once consciousness is gone, there is no more fear. So it seems to me that dying is (and being dead) are quite easy. Living (with fear) is hard.

 

I think it is a rather depressing view that nothing comes after death.

That's interesting. Why is it depressing?

 

Apart from certain Buddhist beliefs, the only concrete idea of life after death I've encountered has been from a Christian perspective and I think it's a lot more depressing to think of my whole life as merely some kind of extended viva voce than as some transient 'miracle' of probability. That's what gives it it's value, the fact it's a temporary state.

 

Judging by the number of my friends who got married in their late teens -early twenties (and who stopped being married at some point soon after that), I think most people can't even grasp how long their own lives are going to be. Yet, these are the people who want to live forever?

 

I think that if something goes on for eternity, it becomes pointless. It's a bit like a race with no finish line. Completely meaningless. Even if, as balls of energy, we explored thouroughly every single star, plantet, moon, asteroid and interesting shaped bit of floating rock in the universe, that would still only account for that groggy few seconds after the alarm goes off on the first morning of the first day of eternity. It sounds awful.

[YT2095]

Pfft...data. The OP asked what do you think? Not if there was any data.

 

thats Extremely arrogant of you to Assume on my behalf that isn`t what I think!

[bascule]

I'd imagine it's a lot like before you were born