The overall question here is whether existence meets its finality in death. Atheism believes that in death there is no more life, however they are simply saying that in death one sees nothing, feels nothing, hears nothing, one ceases to live, therefore there can be no heaven or hell. However, in this state of being, is this simply the permanent end of one’s consciousness rather than his existence? Using a simple analogy we can realize that this is indeed only the end of consciousness and in no way the end of existence. Let’s say that one was to fall asleep one night, and have a totally dreamless sleep. One feels nothing, sees nothing, hears nothing, tastes nothing, smells nothing, one is totally oblivious to all existence because one is totally unconscious. However, does one not still exist? Surely one must, or one would not then be able to rise the next morning. This is to say then, that one does not meet the end of his existence in dying, rather, simply the end of his consciousness. For we could look at death as an eternal dreamless sleep. This would then say that we exist still, rather, are just in an eternal unconsciousness. Surely there is more to existence than life, or the constant beating of a heart. For look at our thoughts, science has revealed thoughts to be simple pulses of electricity in our brains, however, if you were to line up all 6 billion of the people on earth, each one could send the exact same pulse of electricity through their brain, same power, same pattern, same speed, identical, however, ever single one of the 6 billion people could have a completely and totally different thought. However, if their minds were to disengage, none would have thoughts, their senses would go numb, their hearts would stop beating, and they would die, but surely, this does not mean that they no longer exist, for obviously, there is more to man than his physical life. So then, the question I pose is, does existence end at death, or is death simply the end of consciousness, and then, what is the reason behind your conclusion?
After a computer is swicthed off: is it on or is it off?
We have no stand-by mode.
my consciousness is my existence (i think therefore i am?) thus when i am no longer able to do so, i no longer exist.
Just clarifying what I believe are some conceptual errors you made…
Theoretically stated:
Yes, athiests don’t believe in a heaven or hell, which is assumed by default by their definition. But it is a false claim to state that athiests believe there is no more life or existence after death. Many athiests believe that one ceases to exist consciously after death. Furthermore, after death their matter disperses into the ground or wherever, to once again, one day, join in the material composition of another human being in which the matter will once again sojourn life. Moreover, athiests don’t conclude that there is no heaven or hell because they believe that one doesn’t feel, hear, or see anything. Rather, they believe that one doesn’t hear, feel, or see anything BECAUSE there is no God to go to and because they don’t believe in the consciousness continues on after death.
Theoretically stated:
I agree completely.
Theoretically stated:
Here, I think, you have a misconceptualized analogy. There may be some truth to your analogy in relation to athiestic beliefs held by athiests hundreds of years ago. But most contemporary athiests are very well aware that we are not dead to the world when we are sleeping. We are still conscious at certain degree, otherwise, how could anything wake us up? There is also all the research done by psychologists on REM sleep, which was proven by various methods, one of which I remember to be electromagnetic impulses on the brain during sleep which show certain brain areas to be active during sleep that also keep many motor skills and even abstract levels of thought intact throughout your slumber. You say that one is TOTALLY oblivious and TOTALLY unconscious to all existence which is a huge generalization as I have illustrated above, nor is it held by any main stream athiests (that I know of).
Hence, modern athiests would not look at look at death as an eternal dreamless sleep.
Theoretically stated:
Science hasn’t revealed that our thoughts are SIMPLE pulses of electricity in our brains! Thoughts remain one of the greatest enigmas present to the human race. We still can’t figure out how and why they work. Yes we are aware it has something to do with the electricity pulses in our brain, but we are almost clueless as to how we cause them to do so, or how and why they spontaineously pulse by themselves, etc. I’m a little confused as to your vague example of lining people up and this entailing them to have the exact same pulse through their brain. Pulses themselves do not determine what thoughts will occur, this is exactly why science has not solved our ‘thought’ problem. Furthermore, you could send the same electrical signal through every human beings brain in the same area and there would still be differences in their reactions for the simple fact that all human brains are unique. Which is yet another problem for science.
Theoretically stated:
Why would they cease to have thoughts, go numb, etc? What exactly do you mean by disengaging them?
In answering your question I have the following to say: conscious existence, in my opinion, ends at death. But that doesn’t necessitate it ceasing to exist forever. My reasoning is as follows: I have read research articles on near death experiences. Many people mention similar experiences. Usually peaceful experience. Apparently the brain begins to shut down, and the last of our brain to survive before actual death is the most ancient brain which scholars theorize causes a pleasant sensation in order to make dying easier on us. Don’t get me wrong, the same research found exceptions, where people had near death experiences and remember very horrible things (resembling hell). Moreover, my reasoning suggests to me that consciousness is possible through the brain. The brain being a material thing that dies along with the rest of our body, leads me to believe that our consciousness comes to an end as well. But again, that doesn’t necessitate that the consciousness will never exist again.
I hope that helped.
What’s your take?
First of all let me first thank Magius sincerely for your most compelling pose which enlightened me to the many flaws in my thinking. The funny part is that I thought that was a rather good article with excellent evidence for my point, lol, thanks for proving me wrong.
Let me begin by first dealing with the post saying that consciousness is existence using Cogito ergo sum as the basis. I defy this greatly, not so much the I think therefore I am, rather that consciousness and the ability to think that one is is all that makes one. For instance, look at insects, dogs, not all, but most of the species less developed that the human race. Spiders do not have the mental development to process thoughts, therefore a spider cannot consciously think that it is, yet we know that the spider is, so then there must be more to existence than the ability to think that one exists.
Now Magius, I will give you my take. I believe that consciousness and existence can intertwine, but do necessarily have to. I believe that the two can go without each other. You said something along the lines of, in dying you understand that the end of consciousness in death does not mean that the consciousness will not return. I agree, however, I would like now to change the focus of the point now. Let’s say that in dying, with the understanding that one will never again become conscious in any way. Now then, in death with the eternal end of consciousness, does existence also end? I say that it does not as there are many more determining factors to existence outside of consciousness. However, I am most interested in hearing your belief.
After we die our spirits either go to heaven or hell. If we accept Jesus as our Lord than we will have life after death with Jesus in heaven, but if we don’t we go to hell for eternal burning.
Thanks for your enlightening response, mojo. After that lengthy argument, I am ready to give up my evil atheistic ways and make Jesus my lord and saviour (whatever that means). 
Please join us in the religion forum for some interesting religious discussion.
I’m with skeptic,
mojo, send me a list where I can sign up…oh and I hope it’s one of those that ask you to have 10% of your wages withdrawn in order to support your religion to spread the word.
On a serious note…
Theoretically stated:
Yes, this is one basis for the definition of Consciousness. But there are many different beliefs and criterias for what consciousness entails, and not a single one of them has been proven to be right - so we should be careful about how hard headed we get about our beliefs of consciousness.
You should also keep in mind that animals and insect minds are as big a mystery as human minds if not more so, so it is an unweighted argument to compare one to the other in terms of consciousness.
Theoretically stated:
Hmmm…you know I have never met anyone in my life that thought consciousness consisted solely of thinking that one is. Even Descartes idea
of existence and consciousness was not that simple.
Theoretically stated
I’m confused, I thought this was about consciousness, not about consciousness entailing existence. I never argued that a thing that cannot think does not exist. I can’t think of anyone who was arguing that. Even Berkeley who was an extreme idealist believe that only thoughts and God existed yet there were things that did not think that existed, but they existed because they were parts of our mind made up by either us or God and were always being perceived (by either us or God).
Theoretically stated:
Huh? Okay, if you say something can intertwine, that entails that it has the potential to and the potential not to. But then you say that it necessarily has to - which is contradictory to the first statement. Thirdly, you say that the two can go without each other which contradicts the second statement. Either I’m right or I will patiently read about your explanation about two things being restricted together, but going without each other while existing, potentially, as intertwined.
Theoretically stated:
Listen, you may have the understanding that after death one will never again become conscious in any way, but I don’t. Furthermore, I already answered your question in my previous post where I said that if I assume your understanding to be true, then consciousness still doesn’t entail a things non-existance. Where I went into the atoms circling and everything else.
What’s your take?
A table exists even though it has no life. So once a human dies, it still exists but in a inanimate form.
ALso, theoreticality, the electrical impulses in our brains do have different patterns I believe. And the difference in thought has to do with language. As any linguist will tell you, everyday every human utters many sentences that have never been uttered before. So just on that basis, thoughts will be just as diverse.
The body dies but the spirit continues to exist.
buddha it is so easy to make a conjecture but to isolate the conjecture with a progression of understanding and logic is very hard. If your premise is that god exists and that is all then this is not the place for you. The definition of Philosopher is “a lover of knowledge” what you love is to molest those that you envy. I am with the others on this one. You interrupt others thoughts and hard work with your transient glimpse of why we are all here.
that goes for you too mojo
I think one needs to define existence before they can answer this question. I think most philosophical arguements are due to differing definitions of ambiguous words.
If you think along the lines of I think therefore I am, then your existence does end with death because you can’t think after you are dead.
If you think that to exist, you just have to be there, detectable, then your existence doesn’t end with death.
I think this discussion is really asking, ‘Is existence physical or mental?’
Personally I think it’s physical because mental awareness, thinking and consciousness are just tools for the physical body in much the same way as muscles and organs like the liver are. I think that saying existence ends with death is like saying that existence ends with complete paralysis. I think people are their bodies, not their brain’s thoughts or consciousness.
Fair enough, the brain controls all the muscles and other bodily functions, and is essential for life where other bodily functions aren’t, but it only really co-ordinates them. You can still twitch when you’re dead. And without a brain to tell the parts of the body what to do, they just stop and cells stop reproducing giving the illusion that it is decaying quicker when its just that the cells aren’t being replaced because they aren’t being told to.
Existence does not end with death, much like a stone always exists even though it is inanimate. It just changes form, but always exists.
Although Descartes said ‘Cogito ergo sum’, he still was pretty much a religious man. Now what do we know about death? Descartes was absolutely sure no-one could betray him about his existence, because it would always be HIM who was betrayed. Yet, that’s all he wanted to say. He wasn’t talking about death- if he would, he could only say that death is unthinkable. It doesn’t solve any problems, though.
So if Mojo says that God exists and that after life we go either to heaven or to hell, is there any argument which actually PROOFS she’s wrong? To go short, in Descartes’ opinion death is unthinkable and therefor we can’t say ANYTHING about any existence after we died, or at least not with any certainty. Not from this point of view.
I think this discussion should consider another point Descartes made. He split up the world in ‘Res cogitans’ and ‘Res extensa’. Does that distinction exist? For if we can answer this question, we might know the answer to the main question. Is there any psychical world, apart from a physical world? Or, with Berkeley, we can switch sides: Is there any physical world, apart from a psychical world?
Descartes was a great man and started a revolution but he was fundamentally wrong. “I think therefore I am” has a logical error to think is a product of being since we have no example of nothings that think or rather thinkers that aren’t. Descartes tried to start off all his logic with logic and that is the problem. The true beginning of any logic is an axiom or axioms. An axiom is something that is assumed and is the focus of many debates about logic. Even if one uses another logical proof as their axiom that proof has an axiom and eventually you will get to an axiom that is simply assumed. Descartes used I think therefore I am but he could not prove that he thought to anyone else. No one can prove that they think to anyone else nor can anyone prove that they can exist. To think is trivial and is such a shady word that it brings itself into question. How much do you think? How do you think? What is thinking? I could always say that what we call thinking is simply another part of the universe’s decay much like atoms decaying into simpler and simpler atoms and the universe cooling to cooler and cooler temperatures.
It is simply anthropomorphic to assume that thinking is seperate from the physicality of reality because it is impossible to attain any level of thought without the physical processes. The goal of so many religions and people is to achieve a oneness in which they do not categorize or differentiate and one of the biggest things they do is realize that they cannot seperate their mind from their body and that there is no distinction between them. If you do not understand this I would recommend reading the latest interpretation of the pali texts that support buddhism and I don’t mean the ancient translations. There is a new translation that is very enlightening and no I am not buddhist but others can always give me knowledge. I guess what I would like to export to this conversation is that humility is so important in realizing your own truth. I don’t preach that I have and I don’t know whether it is possible but it certainly got me closer. It has helped with my physics and I can imagine and abstract things that have never taken form before.
Death is simply the end of one’s life not a redo. The universe is the process and we are simply a part in its own realization.
Buddism a yearning for Nirvana ( where all desire of existance and worldly good is extinguished, and thesoulis absorbed into the deity )
Life as punishment, existence construed as error, error thus as a punishment - a moral valuation. I’d rather them cure depression through magnetic nerve stimulation to left temporal lobe, and rest in the fact that when i die i’ll know-longer be a counscious entity.
In terminology “soul” refers to the substantial bearer of presentations and other activities which are based upon presentations and which, like presentations, are only perceivable through inner perception.
doubtmore
To go short, in Descartes’ opinion death is unthinkable and therefor we can’t say ANYTHING about any existence after we died, or at least not with any certainty.
How is it were able to “think” metaphysical, or feel theres another all non-empirical realm. In the past with little idea of what the phenomenal was, and little to no scientific method- they made it up in not what’s after death.
Magnius
The brain being a material thing that dies along with the rest of our body, leads me to believe that our consciousness comes to an end as well. But again, that doesn’t necessitate that the consciousness will never exist again.
The only way i can conceive consciousness existing again after death is through scientific theory, which is instead of continous expansion as the universe is, if the universe through gravitys pull stops expanding then the big crunch happens(science though is throwing to many concepts about that im sceptical about ie multi-universe’s). Thus its possible for time to go backwards. Thats unless i understood you wrong.
Umm,
first off what’s with so many people spelling my name as Magnius lately? Just curious, not going to berate you or anything. It would be nice if people could take the time to spell my name correctly.
Umm stated:
Well your above statement is assuming that consciousness is based only on a material level, which hasn’t been proven yet. But should you happen to be right, that atoms which constituted your consciousness prior to you dying, may one day become a part of the agglomerate of atoms of someone elses consciousness, possibly affecting the consciousness in ways that were characteristic of the old you. Which also answers your next statement…
Remember, its just one idea. I mentioned that one because it is one idea I keep open about and which, coincidentally, repeats itself in conversations between myself and others. For many more ideas on how consciousness could continue you may want to pick up some starter Metaphysics books.
What’s your take?
I must refract my statement on buddism; for i have found it untenable with the christian moral faith-which lead me to atheism.
This to me is a question of theology through mental phenomena which is littered with uncertainty’s. It’s all a mind and body thing, ok the latter we gain sentation’s and perception’s which in a fundemental way are kinaesthetic sensation’s of the mind. But when im asleep it can be said truly not to exist.
But when we depart from life we are know longer a subject to the laws of science, as for mental laws “the soul” on the other hand in ower life constitute’s the present which as is alway’s immortal. The mental consciousness constantly excites ideas which are always held truth-so as we cannot know what death is like, immortality is a residing truth. For death i feel insofar as i can metaphysically think, we will exist no longer as counscious entity’s(but that’s unthinkable) i think!
I don’t understand how you can even begin to speculate on what happens in and after death.
I find this interesting, Umm,
What do you mean by “we”? If you’re postulating a human entity that survives physical death, you are engaging in pure conjecture. The only thing we know exists after a human dies is the body, and that is most certainly subject to the laws of science.