Fear of death.

it might and it might not, just like a human might or might not

Fair enough. See I presented it to see if you would still equate the possibility of the afterlife with an absolute end. My theory is that these two possibilities are equated because the afterlife is attractive, imaginable, and personal, ignoring the much lower probability of it being likely.

I love Ryan's recent posts here!

^^^, always

my names is barthes and I don't fear and fear death

odi et amo

I hope I didn't burn anyone out on this topic.

it might and it might not, just like a human might or might not

you're clinging to the "we can never know for sure" line of argument, which obv cannot be refuted. But what is likely vs what is what we'd like to believe. there's no reason to think consciousness exists after death other than a) you never know! and b) wouldn't it be sweet if it did?, neither of which are very compelling scientifically

thank you I felt alone on that point, at least during this round

My "fair enough" was me giving up.

in no way can we imagine not existing since existence and our personal perspectives are one in the same

This is what convinced me of life after death as a kid- just the fact that I couldn't imagine what it would be like to not exist. Of course now I'm older and I realize there are lots of times when there's nothing that it's like to be me - ie., when I'm unconscious. Still there's something weird to think about not existing ever again.

― o. nate, Thursday, September 27, 2012 4:42 PM (Yesterday)

Sorry I bypassed this earlier, nate. Your logic as a kid is what I'm saying is the reason people, at the core of the issue, hold on to a belief of an afterlife. More specific reasons branch off from that sub-conscious basis of perspective.

that's argument against motive though

What do you mean?

I'm saying it's why non-existence after death is denied, I think, at the core of it. The motivation comes as justifications to believe in an afterlife from there.

If you're responding to my comment to nate

that's argument against motive though

which is a logical thing to turn to when the counter argument has no concrete support for it but is very appealing to the emotions

There isn't just one conception of the afterlife, though. Or existence, for that matter. Yes there is a simplistic and pandering version of the afterlife which many believe in. But a discussion on fear of death should not simply focus on this one aspect. A holistic and more fluid way of looking at the cycle of life and death -- as a complete process informed by a personal philosophy on life as well as death -- is less cut and dry.

And one could argue the psychological reasons behind wanting to say there is no afterlife and that anything beyond our consciousness is meaningless. That these motivations are not brought up indicate just as unshakable a belief in one's philosophy. That you are special and your life is one of a kind and unconnected to anything past your experience can be a very self-gratifying way of looking at your place in the grander scheme.

I don't think Evan or I are "wanting" to say there is no afterlife (nor are we even saying that). Merely that there is no evidence for it and it just doesn't jibe with all that we have learned about the world (yes, there's a lot we don't know, but that fact on its own is not reason to support something. only a reason not to dismiss it). And so for a logical person to lean towards there being one makes one think there must be some emotional factors at play.

it just doesn't jibe with all that we have learned about the world

this part i think i disagree with

Consciousness can be completely altered by subtle changes in chemistry and/or electricity, no? Isn't that evidence that it is an electrochemical process, and once those electrochemical reactions cease, consciousness does as well?

nah

that's like saying cutting out the eyes proves the visual processing happens in the eyes

nah

it says eyes are needed for sight. just like a functioning brain is needed for consciousness.

is a plant's ability to photosynthesize get retained after death? If not, why?

-get

i don't see what photosynthesis has to do with consciousness

and i don't see what it doesn't have to do with it! there's no reason to suspect that they both aren't anything other than processes that require a functioning organism in order to occur. why is one "magical" and the other not?

that's like saying cutting out the eyes proves the visual processing happens in the eyes

does a body demonstrate any aspect of consciousness when you remove its brain? what about when you remove an arm? or a kidney?

well, you'd say the body does not

obviously a continuing consciousness could not reside in the body, as that rots

why? does that mean consciousness resides in the brain?xp

does visual processing continue? does circadian rhythm? or is it just consciousness that is able to persist? why?

i'm just answering your questions man, you said it was because the body doesn't do anything w.o the brain

no it doesn't mean it resides in the brain either, you can turn off parts of the brain and keep experiencing consciousness even as you show increasingly little proof of consciousness to the world

because consciousness is *special* duh

it's special because you can't measure it with a flashlight or a stethoscope

some visual processing happens in the eyes itself doesn't it? i forget if edge detection happens there or somewhere further down the pipeline.

you can prove awareness happens somewhere, but i don't think you can really prove consciousness happens period until you can set parameters on what consciousness is.

so it's now not in the body. it was, but it knew to escape cause of the impending rotting. where is it? how does it interact with the universe? is it in anti-matter?

it might be, it might be a fluctuation on the p brane

you can turn off parts of the brain and keep experiencing consciousness even as you show increasingly little proof of consciousness to the world

if you tinker with or remove some parts of the brain, you lose some aspects of consciousness, right? but you're saying that if you remove ALL parts of the brain, you don't lose all aspects of consciousness. why?

because consciousness is *special* duh

oh ok, that solves things then

i'm just saying you can't prove it either way

would you guys agree that awareness is a pre-requisite for consciousness?

i feel like purely as a linguistic matter, you can't say X is conscious of Y without also entailing X is aware of Y.

i'll agree on that but awareness is tough to demonstrate

but "consciousness" behaving differently from any other known organic process, it being "special" for no other reason than it can't be measured, it knowing when to leap from it's tethers and exist infinitely, apart from matter and energy as we know them, that seems plausible to you?

awareness is an aspect of consciousness, yes. you were conflating them awhile back, and at first i thought you were wrong to do so but now i'm not so sure. consciousness disappears when you sleep, or (practically) when you put LSD into the electrochemical system it springs from. then it reappears once those reactions start firing as they normally do when you experience consciousness.

awareness seems to have a more clearly defined threshold -- if something reacts consistently in response to a stimulus, that is evidence of awareness of that stimulus.

I think it's reasonable to conflate awareness and consciousness until someone can come up with an example where awareness and consciousness are not for all practical applications synonymous.

when people suffer brain injuries and have a new version of consciousness, what happened to the old one? is it still out there somewhere? it knew to mosey on out once that spike came plowing through the skull? but it left some of the consciousness behind, right? so just parts of that old consciousness are floating around in the ether?

if something reacts consistently in response to a stimulus, that is evidence of awareness of that stimulus.

like late great said, it can be hard to demonstrate awareness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locked-in_syndrome

split brain injuries reveal multiple awarenesses competing for control of the body, but more tellingly, that these awareness mechanisms were never the synthetic whole they appeared to be in the first place.