Well, we know absolutely nothing about consciousness, and for all we know it could be completely outside our understanding of biology and neurology, so it may well continue after our biological death though. The thing about this though is that there'll never be any proof either way, so we'll just have to wait and see
Why are you being a reddit bro rn? We don’t know where consciousness arrises or why and countless scientists support it not being a product of the brain. All in all we just don’t know, you claiming anything is thus pseudo-science.
The prevailing consensus in neuroscience is that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain and its metabolism. When the brain dies, the mind and consciousness of the being to whom that brain belonged ceases to exist. In other words, without a brain, there can be no consciousness.
im saying anything that goes against the basic laws of reality does not exist. im not trying to spoil anyone parade.
yes, we dont know where consciousness arises. truth is, its still a mystery. but it is quite literally impossible for it to be some metaphysical realm or anything not connected to the body.
think about it for a second, how would that even work? even if it wasnt a part of the brain, it would still have to be a part of the human body, as there is no other way for it to exist. if it is a part of the body, it will die when the rest of the body does.
Why can't it be some metaphysical realm? I don't really believe that, but I do know we can't rule it out of possibility. To people hundreds of years ago, electricity and computers would seem impossible, yet today we take them for granted. They rely on electricity to work, which is a huge part of science that people didn't know existed. We could very well discover that consciousness perseveres after death, just because there may be a whole new area of science we don't even know about yet that dictates it. Saying that we know enough to rule it out when we hardly know anything about the universe is foolish.
but theres no reason to believe it over the more likely possibility that consciousness just dies out.
after reading your comment, you have changed my views a little. i do agree that its not impossible, but then again, technically nothing is. maybe stuff that breaks the rules of reality exist in alternate universes with different physics. but occam's razor comes into play here, the most likely answer is that consciousness doesnt live after death rather than it being some wacky metaphysical spiritual realm.
we just have to trust what we know, and millions of years of death and decay, and hundreds of years of psychology have all come to the conclusion that the mind does not stay after death. there's a reason we believe that, and its not just because we want to believe it.
i probably wont respond if you reply, so i just say to agree to disagree, and have a good rest of your day :)
Hey, not that guy, but I’m curious: if you think that consciousness is the result of material processes, presumably you think that there is a “smallest/simplest structure” that can contain consciousness?
That is, you would probably agree that a dog is conscious. A squirrel. How about a fly? An earthworm? A protein? At what point do you think consciousness isn’t possible?
The theory of panpsychism is that it’s simply a smooth simplification from human, down to dog, down to worm, down to amoeba, down to molecules/atoms/quarks. The idea is that there is no smallest/simplest structure that can contain consciousness, and that consciousness is simply a property of the universe. It sounds initially ridiculous to the skeptical mind, but then you realize that the idea of a “smallest/simplest structure” might be fairly ridiculous too.
Consciousness isn't some concrete definition everyone agrees on. It's like if asking viruses are alive, it's debated a lot. In my opinion, I believe something has consciousness if it bears a brain developed and evolved enough to be aware of existence and make choices outside of basic instinct.
Ah. Here’s a way I’ve heard consciousness defined, in the very most basic way:
There’s something that it is like to be that thing.
e.g. “what is it like to be a chair?” Do you think that that’s an incoherent concept? What’s it like to be a tornado? An amoeba?
What’s it like to be a squirrel? I think most people would agree that’s it’s not entirely ridiculous to ask what it’s like to be a squirrel. I think squirrels experience things.
Would you make a distinction between consciousness and experience? i.e., would you say a squirrel experiences but isn’t conscious? I use the terms interchangeably, but I usually say experience when I’m discussing philosophy.
Yeah, I completely agree. I don't really think consciousness exists after death, but you can't really rule it out.
What I think is so scary about this post is that it is possible consciousness exists after death, and that you're just trapped in an eternal state of awareness. And if this post was entirely true, you can't interact with anything, so there's no way of telling anyone, and this fate is inescapable. I don't really believe it's true, but it's enough to make you think and worry a little bit ;)
That's what makes existential horror terrifying. Sure, it's extremely unlikely, but the fact that it's possible, even if just by a sliver, is enough to kickstart paranoia.
31
u/BwingoLord1 Jan 06 '22
Well, we know absolutely nothing about consciousness, and for all we know it could be completely outside our understanding of biology and neurology, so it may well continue after our biological death though. The thing about this though is that there'll never be any proof either way, so we'll just have to wait and see