What happens to us when we die?

As stated by many others I believe once we die the conscious awareness will no longer be in working order. The brain dies, so there is no longer any way of consciousness to operate, its sensory systems will be shut down, as brain activity ceases to function memories will no longer be able to be activated, we will no longer be capable to learn we will be as lifeless as a rock. This is not to say we cease to exist.
Daniel Dennett once said imagine if a computer with one very unique programme was completely destroyed, does the programme its self still exist?
I would like think that life after death exists in the form of memories, if someone were to think of me once I have passed on they will be able to recreate a perfect image of me in there head, they will feel those emotions they felt when my physical self was in there presence.
By acknowledging my existence, could mean that to a certain degree I still exist, just not in a physical form.

As stated by many others I believe once we die the conscious awareness will no longer be in working order. The brain dies, so there is no longer any way of consciousness to operate, its sensory systems will be shut down, as brain activity ceases to function memories will no longer be able to be activated, we will no longer be capable to learn we will be as lifeless as a rock. This is not to say we cease to exist.
Daniel Dennett once said imagine if a computer with one very unique programme was completely destroyed, does the programme its self still exist?
I would like think that life after death exists in the form of memories, if someone were to think of me once I have passed on they will be able to recreate a perfect image of me in there head, they will feel those emotions they felt when my physical self was in there presence.
By acknowledging my existence, could mean that to a certain degree I still exist, just not in a physical form.

What do you do with the data that "brain dead" people have ongoing reports of consciousness? During times that they were clinically brain dead?

Scott wrote:

(" Nonetheless, when most people ask, "what happens when we die," they just mean the same old individual version of 'self' that most people mean when they say it. Generally speaking, they are just referring to the personality and information stored in their brains.")

I think your comment is a grand assumption. I can honestly say that I do not know what most people think. I can assume what they think, but I don't know. As for myself I find luciditee's remarks to be enlightening, and in keeping with the notion of energy returning to the universe once the human body dies.

Groktruth wrote: What do you do with the data that "brain dead" people have ongoing reports of consciousness? During times that they were clinically brain dead?

From what I understand that although there has been some brain activity observed during a flat EEG I am not aware, of any actual empirical evidence that activity in those structures seems to be specifically linked to consciousness. I can think of only one type of physiological difference that might in theory be relevant.
During clinical death there could still be some physiological activity deeper in the brain that would vicariously support consciousness, which is normally connected to the cortex. However, there is no evidence that it is plausible that such non-cortical brain processes could support enhanced consciousness as reported during NDEs for example.
Note that we are not talking about primitive forms of consciousness, but about full-blown, lucid human consciousness that includes 'higher order' thought, memory and volition. It is not to be expected that non-cortical parts of the brain could suddenly take over supposedly highly complex functions of the cortex during clinical death.

I think we as humans get stuck in the limits of what we believe we know. We use a fraction of our brain mass. We correlate brain function with consciousness. I am not at all sure that our consciousness is limited by the function or failure of our human body. There is so much more to know, that goes beyond conventional thinking.

When we die, we simply "cease to be." Nothing more, nothing less.

Maybe. Maybe not. Your rather firm stance on the subject implies that you have some sure way of knowing, and our inclination as humans is to be swayed by such certainty. But I doubt that you have such a sure way on knowing, and I exhort all, unless you can present such, to resist such a response.

Incorrect: a firm stance does not necessarily imply certainty, as strong reasons are also a cause of such strong views. Therefore, given that strong reasons may be given to support strong views, there seems to be no apparent reason to suppose that anyone avoid responding as such. What matters, then, is what such strong reasons may be, and whether or not these reasons do or do not indeed support the given stance. And perhaps that's what should be discussed here.

We all have a great amount to lose, and little to gain, by prematurely making up our minds about this. Wait, at least, until the results are in from the NDE studies, where those going on from death to some alternative universe, come back with information that is likely dependent on their actually making such a trip.

Well, if by "making up our minds," you mean absolute certainty, then you may be right (depending on why you think we have so much to lose and little to gain). But if, on the other hand, you mean simply "reaching tentative logical conclusions," then I see no reason to believe we will lose anything, as I see the use of reason according to the available evidence to be an incredible personal benefit. And as far as my view of death goes, it's only logically tentative (albeit, very strong and firm, due to strong reasons).

The extensive anecdotal data support the "there is more, some good, some bad" idea. In state of the art Bayesian science, such makes the hypothesis much more plausible, even though the supporting data are anecdotal. But, this approach to science is curiously "controversial" although philosophically, it has by far the best track record. The argument that our efforts to get to the truth about this are under a disinformation assault from guardians of these alternative universes is therefore not all that implausible, once you get past the wishful thinking bias.

But, maybe, "hard" data will soon be forthcoming. Let us hope, maybe pray, that this is so.

I repeat, here more than anywhere else, you want to get the truth before the truth gets you.

I think we should always be somewhat open to the possibility that there is more to death than meets the eye, but at the same time, I don't think we should put a lot of stock into much of this anecdotal "evidence." If we ever come to find that there's more to death, then we should be willing to accept it. But until that ever happens, we're best off sticking to the most reasonable position possible with an indifference as to whether not these extraordinary stories are at all true.

Thus, may we remain neutral and skeptical about stories of other worlds and life beyond death (matters for which there is little strong support) and bold and courageous enough to stick to whatever views reason demands to be most plausible at the given time.

Inquisitor,

A very clear presentation of rationalist epistemology. I simply alert all that this is choice over evidentialist epistemology.

The evidentialist possibility that we have a 21 gram dark matter soul that could end up falling into a black hole and suffering enormously is at stake. But, how likely is that?

When you die you will be aware of nothing. It's called 'oblivion'. After you die Earth can suffer a huge meteor strike and all the living things die, but you will be unaware of it.

The reason for this is that you will have no body, especially no brain, to be aware with.
True, until you disintegrate into elements you wil for a brief time look to others like you did before you died but you will decompose within days unless preserved in ice.

I do wonder if cryotechnologists will ever re- animate years and years after technical death! I doubt if scientists will ever get funding for the r and d.

Inquisitor,

A very clear presentation of rationalist epistemology. I simply alert all that this is choice over evidentialist epistemology.

The evidentialist possibility that we have a 21 gram dark matter soul that could end up falling into a black hole and suffering enormously is at stake. But, how likely is that?

Good question: how likely is that? It seems fairly implausible.

I do not know of data that suggests that what you have described is at least 50% probable, but if you have striking data that indeed suggests this, I'd love to hear about it (so long as it's not anecdotal evidence).

Moreover, even if we did a) possess a "soul" and b) were in danger of this substance suffering in other areas of the universe, what would it matter that we believe or do not believe in this? It seems we would indeed have to deal with black holes, or whatever else, inevitably. So 1) I see no reason to believe that we have some sort of "cosmic soul," and given this, 2) it seems our views on the matter are largely irrelevant, and therefore, not as crucial and significant as you make it out to be.

Thus, until hard data is indeed found to support these notions, I will continue to rest my hat on the position that there is likely nothing after death but a loss of consciousness. The current data logically implies it; only weak evidence speaks against it.

Also, I think the distinction between rationalist and evidentialist epistemology is an unnecessary dichotomy, as justification for beliefs can come from a combination of both reason and evidence, not one or the other. Thus, there are more views to take into account than simply these two (such as internalism, skepticism, or coherentism, for instance). This also means there is no inherently "perfect" approach or methodology.

Given this, it does none of us any good to constantly remind one another which approach to take at any given time. What matters, instead, is what reasons are given for any particular viewpoint at any given time. Thus, if one person believes we lose consciousness at death, while another believes we do not have enough evidence to say either way, the reasons for either of these viewpoints are what should be discussed -- not the simple fact that both may follow different approaches in the construction or development of their views. So there's really no reason to "warn against" any particular method when it comes to how people approach particular issues. What we should warn against is perhaps fallacious reasoning, or the use of poor evidence.

And thus, To each his own in terms of epistemological approach; with the reasons given for any particular view should we be concerned.

Inquisitor,

A very clear presentation of rationalist epistemology. I simply alert all that this is choice over evidentialist epistemology.

The evidentialist possibility that we have a 21 gram dark matter soul that could end up falling into a black hole and suffering enormously is at stake. But, how likely is that?

Good question: how likely is that? It seems fairly implausible.

I do not know of data that suggests that what you have described is at least 50% probable, but if you have striking data that indeed suggests this, I'd love to hear about it (so long as it's not anecdotal evidence).

Moreover, even if we did a) possess a "soul" and b) were in danger of this substance suffering in other areas of the universe, what would it matter that we believe or do not believe in this? It seems we would indeed have to deal with black holes, or whatever else, inevitably. So 1) I see no reason to believe that we have some sort of "cosmic soul," and given this, 2) it seems our views on the matter are largely irrelevant, and therefore, not as crucial and significant as you make it out to be.

Thus, until hard data is indeed found to support these notions, I will continue to rest my hat on the position that there is likely nothing after death but a loss of consciousness. The current data logically implies it; only weak evidence speaks against it.

Also, I think the distinction between rationalist and evidentialist epistemology is an unnecessary dichotomy, as justification for beliefs can come from a combination of both reason and evidence, not one or the other. Thus, there are more views to take into account than simply these two (such as internalism, skepticism, or coherentism, for instance). This also means there is no inherently "perfect" approach or methodology.

Given this, it does none of us any good to constantly remind one another which approach to take at any given time. What matters, instead, is what reasons are given for any particular viewpoint at any given time. Thus, if one person believes we lose consciousness at death, while another believes we do not have enough evidence to say either way, the reasons for either of these viewpoints are what should be discussed -- not the simple fact that both may follow different approaches in the construction or development of their views. So there's really no reason to "warn against" any particular method when it comes to how people approach particular issues. What we should warn against is perhaps fallacious reasoning, or the use of poor evidence.

And thus, To each his own in terms of epistemological approach; with the reasons given for any particular view should we be concerned.

My own estimate of the plausibility of the 21 gram soul scenario, or something similar, from the scientific evidence that has been gathered to test this hypothesis, is that it is so close to 1.0 that it is beyond reasonable doubt. I have studied the early prayer exeriments of the late 1950's (Franklin Loehr, Power of prayer on Plants) through later prayer studies, theomatics, bible code studies, and tests of biblical predictions regarding the presence of a "God" who blesses and curses certain behaviors. These all are tests of the assumption that the biblical God is who He says He is, and the circumstances of our life are as He describes. Most have produced data that are wildly improbable statistically, and inexplicable with other reasonable hypotheses.

But, the interaction of free will and logical or even evidential imperatives is such that, theologically, one must choose to believe before they will, or even can, be persuaded by all this. The theological hypothesis is that the putative God behind the bible makes free will trump all other epistemic imperatives. He will, theoretically, allow someone to be convinced that, say, the earth is round without their making a conscious choice to believe the truth, whatever it might be. (But, anyone choosing to believe that the earth is flat cannot be convinced otherwise whatever the evidence or logic!) But, the epistemic "machine," man is theologically so constructed (according to this hypothesis) that he must first choose to live and not die (Choose life!), and, choose, if it should be that there truly is this God Person out there, to love this Person enough to find out in their own experience that He is. (This is called, theologically, "Choosing the fear of God.").

So, I have no intent or hope that my review of this evidence will persuade anyone. I present it as an example of one man's epistemic journey, so that other's can choose to have one of their own. Or not. The desired outcome is that, if it is true (as I estimate it almost certainly is) that other's have a 21 gram soul that will fall into a black hole, when this happens, it is their own fault.

For, along with this truth, if it is true, is the way of escape, which is to love the truth whatever it might be, and to choose love over this dismal fate. Even love for that very strange person, God. Like all loves, you have to believe in the beloved. Love, in fact, even "believes all things." It is a sacrifice, to be sure, for much that we love and believe in proves false and breaks our heart. Still, better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all. At least, that's my choice.

My reasons for this choice? I tasted some "mountaintop" experiences with love and truth, and kept coming back for more. Life, in it's highest moments for me, was "good." I visited hell once. Maybe it was only a bad dream, but dream or reality, I did not ever want that to happen again. Compared to what I experienced listening to Veery's sing at dusk on Reddish Knob with my mentor, Mr. Haines, the choice for love and truth was a no brainer.

When we die, we simply "cease to be." Nothing more, nothing less.

I believe you, Inquisitor, because you've implied that your definition of self is bounded by your living body. It is by your own definition that you will cease to be.

Sure, death will take away things that my body currently provides but I will not cease to be. I do not depend on supernatural forces to be certain of this. My self identity simply draws a different boundary than yours does. In life I largely identify with my body but also push against its boundaries. These boundaries exert a sense of self separateness from the rest of the universe. I push against them so that when my body dies I will no longer feel separate from everything.

Even if the form of consciousness I am currently used to is among the things death takes from me, it will not take being from me.

When we die, we simply "cease to be." Nothing more, nothing less.

I believe you, Inquisitor, because you've implied that your definition of self is bounded by your living body. It is by your own definition that you will cease to be.

quote]

Believing in "truth" means that one lives as though there are things that are going to happen no matter what we think about them. Giving ourselves the last word about how words are defined is the humpty-dumpty problem. When you fall, and meet the hard truth, you are broken beyond repair. Objective definition of terms is thus the sin qua non of philosophic integrity.

Maybe Inquisitor will cease to be. Maybe, in that transition, nothing will happen. Maybe "dreams will come," lit-up tunnels or unspeakable horrors. Dreams that seem to last forever. Maybe there will be a substantial physical transition, like mass turned into energy.

We members of the species are either evolved or designed to be truth-getters, where the truth matters for survival and satisfaction. So far, we have done right well in this task. We ought to press on.

Believing in "truth" means that one lives as though there are things that are going to happen no matter what we think about them.

Thank you for putting it that way, Groktruth. Of course I agree that there are facts about the world that we do not control.

You then go on to say:

Objective definition of terms is thus the sin qua non of philosophic integrity.

These words sound nice but I don't find them meaningful. The only thing objective about defined terminology is whether its use is consistent. When there is ambiguity in the terminology that we share I see it as our responsibility to define our terms as a point of clarity. I find dictionaries helpful but not sufficient. Their insufficiency is a sign that human created language and ideas are constantly expanding as culture moves forward. I invite you to convince me that clarifying our definitions will ever be unnecessary in such a moving environment.

In my point of view, consciousness and language enable humans to create meaning. I accept that there are objective facts we cannot change but I ask you to recognize that there are also facts created by our free willed choices. My definition of self is one such choice. It is a choice that creates a fact about the real world.

So I died....but you're not gonna believe that, so I guess there would be no point in telling you anything else. What I will say is, you'll find out...eventually.

Am I alone in believing there is value in refining our ideas about terms like "I" and "self"? I thought this was a philosophy forum where people might be interested in a critique of conventional assumptions.

-- Updated November 20th, 2011, 7:30 pm to add the following --

Kudos to "Thinking Critical". I missed this thoughtful earlier post:

As stated by many others I believe once we die the conscious awareness will no longer be in working order. The brain dies, so there is no longer any way of consciousness to operate, its sensory systems will be shut down, as brain activity ceases to function memories will no longer be able to be activated, we will no longer be capable to learn we will be as lifeless as a rock. This is not to say we cease to exist.
Daniel Dennett once said imagine if a computer with one very unique programme was completely destroyed, does the programme its self still exist?
I would like think that life after death exists in the form of memories, if someone were to think of me once I have passed on they will be able to recreate a perfect image of me in there head, they will feel those emotions they felt when my physical self was in there presence.
By acknowledging my existence, could mean that to a certain degree I still exist, just not in a physical form.

In I Am A Strange Loop, Douglas Hofstadter credits Daniel Dennett with helping him wrestle with the notion of "soul shards" while clinging to artifacts of his wife's memory after her sudden death. It is a touching treatment of the boundaries of life by two great thinkers more comforted by scientific than religious points of view.