But, as technology and neuroscience improve, machines may follow energy beyond death, recording what occurs.
What if it is not recordable?
All energy can be recorded, you just have to creat a machine that can , or a lifeform.
I know that all energy can be recorded, but energy does not necessarily show us the way of consciousness or the death. That was what I meant by “not recordable”. There is no knowledge but only speculation about what consciousness and death physically are - not to mention what they non-physically are.
Imagination is sensory. Imagine a cat, you picture what it looks and sounds like; imagine a surprise you summon up the feelings of shock. There’s nothing sensory (as far as I know) about death. I can’t imagine being in a deep dreamless sleep either - except in an abstract third-person sense - because there’s no image to imagine.
Certain brain activity is correlated by certain experiences - and in cases where it’s possible, causing this activity (with e.g. magnetic waves) causes sensations, etc. Given that we don’t know… what reasons do we have to believe that a brain that’s completely inactive experiences anything?
Speculation leads to study, tests, experiments. Knowledge and understanding can take decades even centuries. Science is an evolving thing. The machines that measure brain activity are evolving. I have read that they are working on getting images from thought patterns. Some patient highly curious determined geniuses could discover a way to get to measure or track what occurs after death.
Being dead would be a lot like sleeping only without the dreaming part.
That’s where the saying you sleep as practice for when you’re dead comes from. The big eternal sleep.
Yes.
No reasons, unless there would be a purely spiritual consciousness with merely occasional connections to a brain.
The question remains - what reasons would we have to believe in that?
But there is an issue that has almost nothing to do with science and any kind of technology or engineering. This issue is that a word like “death” and other words (for example also “consciousness”) are still concepts and not things. So we have to define and possibly redefine these words in order to understand them better and better. And “death” is no word for a thing but a description for no thing (no-thing, nothing), and this makes it so difficult to be an object for science and technology or engineering. Imagine the said machine records that there is no thing (no-thing, nothing), which means that death is just what the word “death” already means. This machine would approve our linguistic and philosophic definitions. And that would be good (too), wouldn’t it?
Do you mean the belief in experiences of a completely inactive brain or the belief in a consciousness with merely occasional connections to a brain?
However. There are some spiritual reasons. Knowing and believing are supplementary, and that can be an epistemological advantage.
Active/Inactive brain; knowing/believing may not necessarily follow an epistemological advantage/disadvantage. Although correlations can be set up: among all possible scenarios: actively knowing,inactively believing etc.,; as advantageous or not- all of them can be thought of as possibilities, although not probabilities.
That an inactive brain is brain dead, or merely asleep presents a further complication, this is why the belief that lead to the literary observation that ‘is this but a dream’? ~ referring to conscious awareness~ Diminishing the value of the above expressed distinctions.
The imagination may likely ,to somehow be tied to this schema , in a manner that further reduces probable toward the possible value of making the
distinction. (As far as reducing even the effect of the belief/knowledge distinction.)
Is this turning toward the downward argument to death, Kierkegaard like, as in This sickness unto death? Contesting existence it’s self to be some kind of illness? ; An illness to be awakened from by the power of the imagination? Not trying to know it on basis of some belief or other, but by using images of death to evoke the sense that death is inherent more in the imagination then in the knowledge of it?
The former may be more impressive then the later expresses, because after all , death is a solitary experience, YES grounded in Dasein, and there is no objective death as well as no objective or object to die. Death is a senseless event, and it is through the images associated with dear, which are available to what we have come to symbolize with that word.
Anyone can form an image of death, but only some one else, and not even of death, but only an image, a picture, a still picture at that, of a formerly image of a moving person.
This death contraindicated the conscious development of a ‘film of life’ whereby the effects of re-presentation were from still toward movement.
Death is the imago, moving backward in time to finally freeze into silence the warmth of a technicolor film, into the black and white of death and re-birth;
transfiguration.
Death is not only imagined, it IS the imagination. It the recurrent re-presentation of life.
Would you agree, if someone said: “‘Death’ is the word as a means to metaphysically answer a difficult question that can’t be scientifically or technologically answered (yet)”?
I can’t. I can only imagine how others might or might not be effected from it.
I exist, and then I die later on. Both are extremely unique experiences.
Yes I would, but that argument encapsulates the inquire within the format of the most exhaustive, general idea, framed as a patent reflection upon a latent dynamic.
The word ‘death’ doesen’t explain anything, it only describes an idea, by assigning a symbol-a sign to some thing inexplicable.
I would think it leaves the imagination as a tool of re-presentation unexplored.
I meant the latter.
I’m a little confused by your answer. If there is no requirement for evidential or logical reasoning, what separates an epistemological inquiry into reality from a theological support of dogma or an emotive desire for comfort? That is to say - if philosophy isn’t helping us to look past what we’d like to believe in favour of what is, then what is it doing?
To “die later on” refers to the future - so it can’t be an experience for someone now (thus: in the present) who will “die later on” (thus: in the future).
Death is the dissemination of the self. One can only begin to experience one’s own dissemination before the self can no longer experience.
Oh. I’m sorry.
The word “belief” is not theologically meant here. Originally belief is not a “religious” or “theological” word and concept.
The trick is to not use belief as a dogma but merely as an epistemological “crutch”. If there will be more certainty, then you will not use it anymore and put it in your “cellar”.
It is at least no advantage or satisfaction to you, if you must always say “I know nothing” or “I know that I know nothing”. Philosophy and science do not have 100%-answers. So it is better to live with an epistemological “crutch” than with stupidity or/and lies.
The epistemological “crutch” helps you to find a solution or not, to come a to yes/no- or true/false-decision. It does not dogmatize you, or, in other words, it depends on your personality and character whether it dogmatizes you or not: if it does, then you are not a good philosopher or scientist; if it does not, then you are a good philosopher or scientist. Science would never have been successful without help like what we call “empirism” (“observation”, “experiment”, “extrapolation”, and so on and so forth), “deduction”, “induction”, and other “crutches”.
If this all turns out as a dogma, then it is not the “crutch” that is to be blame but those humans who are corrupt or too dumb.
Science and philosophy have always used such “crutches”. Otherwise they would never have developed (historically evolved).
How I use the word and concept “belief”:
Belief is needed.