In Greek mythology, Hypnos (sleep) and Thanatos (death) were twin brothers. The Greeks were onto something. — TheMadFool

Spot on. And the Greeks proved right on many things.

You don't know that it doesn't make contact, communicate and interact. For example, inspiration, artistic, scientific, or religious, may partly come from disembodied souls. — Apollodorus

That sounds like they were having some sort of hallucinations.

That question is based on the unproven assumption that consciousness can't exist independently of a physical body. Does a body at rest cease to be a body? Disembodied consciousness may perfectly well experience states of rest or sleep, after which it is reborn into a new body and forgets its previous existence.

Besides, consciousness after death is said to inhabit a body (called ochema in Platonism) that is similar to the physical one but made of a more subtle form of substance.

According to Ian Stevenson children sometimes seem to remember aspects of former lives for a few years until memories fade away and the child's consciousness becomes fully integrated with its new existence. — Apollodorus

This sounds like some sort of mysticism rather than Philosophical topics?

Unless I'm missing something else, this is confused, Fool. "An electrical energy pattern" IS "a physical pattern". — 180 Proof

Indeed! You're right. I've always had trouble thinking of energy (electricity being one of them) as physical. I'm told this was a recent development in physicalism. My bad and thanks for correcting me. I hope I don't repeat this mistake again.

However, in my defense, the pattern that consciousness may be needn't be physical per se, right? It could be, for instance, a mathematical one i.e. abstract enough to, well, escape the clutches of physicalist fanatics of which there seem to be a few im this forum. Not referring to you of course.

If consciousness is a mathematical formula (patterns in maths are formulas last I checked) then, the medium in which it's instantiated is...er...immaterial (pun unintended).

Yes. The 'connectome' is the target. — 180 Proof

Poor connectome!

nonreductive physicalism — 180 Proof

What's that?

Spot on. And the Greeks proved right on many things. — Apollodorus

It's all Greek to me! :rofl:

This sounds like some sort of mysticism rather than Philosophical topics? — Corvus

It may sound like that to you. Stevenson and others like him regard themselves as scientists.

It may sound like that to you. Stevenson and others like him regard themselves as scientists. — Apollodorus

But scientific knowledge needs concrete evidence and proof on their theories.

"The pattern", whatever else it may be or however it is mathematized, affects and is affected by physical systems and so, to that degree, must also be physical. Talk of "immaterial" "nonphysical" "supernatural" "ethereal" "platonic" ... patterns in the brain is mere nonsense-woo. As always, my friend, use Google, SEP & wiki for look-ups if you're truely interested – I'm here for dialectics first and foremost, not lexicography.

But scientific knowledge needs concrete evidence and proof on their theories. — Corvus

If Stevenson and others apply scientific methods in their research then it can't be dismissed as "mysticism". In any case, their findings can't be rejected before even looking at them. To do so would be unscientific.

"The pattern", whatever else it may be or however it is mathematized, affects and is affected by physical systems and so, to that degree, must also be physica — 180 Proof

I'm not a mathematician, I'd love to be one but my love of math is an unrequited one, just like my other loves. Anyway, from what I know, if consciousness is a mathematical formula, I was wondering if we, our consciousness, exists in some kind of Platonic world of forms? Crazy or not, you be the judge.

platonic — 180 Proof

Exactly!

Did you read my last post? E=mc² is a mathematical formula describing thermonuclear reactions of stars in this physical world and not in some "platonic heaven". Stop confusing an abstract map for the non-abstract territory (re: category mistake), Fool. "Consciousness" might be non-physical, or platonic, in some aspects but that's a spectulative distinction without an evidentiary (operatonal) difference because it affects and is affected by the physical brain-CNS.

I am interested in other people's thoughts on the question of what becomes of consciousness at death? — Jack Cummins

My view is that nothing happens to consciousness at death. What is lost is identity - temporary functional wholes (e.g. a human body and brain) disintegrate, cease to function in a co-operative organised way as they do in life. Also what is lost are particular complex ideas, feelings, desires, memories, all the make-up of a person's psychological identity, all of which are dependent on that functioning whole. There are still feelings, sensations in the leftovers, but these will be of a complexity and interest level corresponding to the structure and function of the remains. Identities are broken up, shifted and changed.

I have just read the many entries on this thread, which seems to have resurfaced, and it feels like about 10 years ago since I started the thread. That is because I have done so much thinking since that time in many discussions of consciousness on this site.

I do see a big problem with the idea of the existence of any disembodied form of existence and I do see this as a big argument against life after death. I believe that this is why a lot of ideas about life after death have been about ways to enable physical bodies to survive, in the prospect of reincarnation or resurrection of the dead. Of course, I realise that some of these ideas may be based on wishful thinking. I thought that @TheMadFools question about whether consciousness could be transferred to artificial brains is interesting. This is because the idea of brain replacement is one idea within the transhumanist picture, but there is the underlying question about identity, and to what extent this would survive.

I was extremely interesting in the thread on the theory of blind brains and consciousness started yesterday, because it is one which is trying to understand the nature of consciousness in relation to the working of the brain. I think that the whole idea of consciousness and subliminal levels of perception is extremely relevant to the idea of thinking where consciousness ends. I believe that even ideas of panpsychism come into play.

I think that many people, from all angles, try to come up with clear answers. In some ways, this may involve a wish for an afterlife, and I am not sure if I even want one, and it would depend on what this form of existence may constitute. From reading on this thread, and other reading, I can see the logistics of the arguments of physical materialism, but do not see them as absolutes because in so many areas of thinking about consciousness, including physics, as well as philosophy, there still remains a certain amount of uncertainty, particularly in the understanding of the nature of consciousness.

a

Trying to look at this question from a philosophy perspective, I am aware of the idea of souls arising within the tradition going back to Plato and Plotinus. I am certainly not dismissing it. But, trying to see it as from the standpoint of the philosophies of our time, it is complex. We can ask what are souls, and, even, what are bodies? Where does one end and, where does the sense of personal identity lie within this spectrum?

wishful thinking. — Jack Cummins

Right up my alley my dear Jack Cummins. I've been doing that my entire life and the results have been "amazing", if you know what I mean. :wink: :wink:

A man always has two reasons for what he does—a good one, and the real one — J P Morgan

It appears all is not lost!

resurfaced — Jack Cummins

Odd spot for a sub to "resurface." :rofl:

Frankly speaking, your question, "what happens to consciousness when we die?" is particularly misleading from the standpoint of mysticism because of the mistaken emphasis on consciousness. It's like trying to understand the intrinsic nature of a, say, a gift box by studying its contents. Something not possible to my reckoning. It looks like I've been associating with the wrong crowd but if it's all the same to you, does being "conscious without being conscious of something" ring any bells?

does being "conscious without being conscious of something" ring any bells? — TheMadFool

It would depend on what you mean by "something". According to Plotinus, the reasoning part of us (to dianoetikon) is conscious of objects perceived by means of the sense faculties. In contrast, the Intellect or spirit proper (Nous) is conscious of itself. In other words, the highest form of consciousness is self-reflective intelligence whose essential activity is reflexive. Therefore, self-consciousness or consciousness of oneself as consciousness, is the knowledge that philosophy ultimately aims to attain.

It would depend on what you mean by "something". According to Plotinus, the reasoning part of us (to dianoetikon) is conscious of objects perceived by means of the sense faculties. In contrast, the Intellect or spirit proper (Nous) is conscious of itself. In other words, the highest form of consciousness is self-reflective intelligence whose essential activity is reflexive. Therefore, self-consciousness or consciousness of oneself as consciousness, is the knowledge that philosophy ultimately aims to attain. — Apollodorus

Well, to be frank, it appears that Russell's paradox pops up in the weirdest of places. First thing that must happen is the mind "set" must contain something, anything except itself of course. So, suppose M is the mind "set". You think of something, say, the number 1. Now the mind "set" looks like this: M = {1}. Only after such a step is completed can the mind contain itself like so M = {{1}} i.e. for the duration that you're thinking about 1, M = {M}. However, M = {M}, a set that contains itself is, last I gave it some serious consideration, is impossible. I'm out of my depths here. Help me out!

a

I think that you raise such interesting questions, but I need time to think, but in the meantime, it is possible that others will come up with many ideas. I am fascinated by various responses and ideas, but just trying to hold out without my mind exploding completely. No one in philosophy has yet explored the idea of the exploding mind, but I do struggle with it at times.

you raise such interesting questions — Jack Cummins

:blush: You're too kind.

my mind exploding — Jack Cummins

Logic bomb?

a

First thing that must happen is the mind "set" must contain something, anything except itself of course. — TheMadFool

Well, you can think of the sea as a vast expanse or body of water that (1) contains and is itself as water and (2) contains things other than water itself such as fish.

Now compare consciousness with the sea. It is a vast expanse or body of self-aware intelligent energy that is (1) aware of itself as itself and (2) aware of objects such as thoughts, emotions, sense perceptions, etc.

It probably goes beyond philosophy, but one of my favourite albums of all times is, 'Mind Bomb' by The The. Music tastes aside,we could ask to what extent do we turn ourselves into 'mind bombs' when we ask such complex questions? I am sure that I turn myself into a bit of a mind bomb, but in many ways see that as my role and purpose in my grand scheme of purpose in the consciousness of my own philosophy, and of those which exist in a far more universal way.

I definitely believe in the importance of slowing down. Sometimes, I rush answers through on this site, but, I am aware of their temporarily, with limitations. The wider questions are ongoing and cannot be reduced to the temperature or individual answers. Each of us may grapple for answers, and write down our ideas, but these are probably only fragments of knowing, and the deep questions of philosophy will endure for us and many others.

So, I am interested in other people's thoughts on the question of what becomes of consciousness at death? — Jack Cummins

We are all All, but while we are alive we are All separately perceiving itself. When we die, we are All, as All, perceiving All as such, and blown away by it. Sometimes it becomes too much beauty, too much joy, so we parse ourselves out again for more individualized perceptions our self. It's like an orgasm followed by a refractory period, a cigarettes' in contemplation, a deep breath, before we die again. Life is down time.

The consciousness is us, then All, then us, then All, etc. But when it is us, it is like the rain drop and when it is All, it is the rain drop in the ocean. While we are alive it may seem humbling, even demeaning to seem to have lost our selves in death, into an ocean of All, but it's not like that at all. It may seem we lose our individuality, our separateness, and maybe we have, but we will love being the machine instead of being a mere cog in it. Besides, we can go back to being a cog. Who decides how, why and when? I don't know.

I'm not sure there is any such thing as a "mind bomb", otherwise you would see exploding heads everywhere.

The mind may feel like a bomb waiting to explode when you try to force-feed it too much info at the same time.

However, even then you can try looking at the mind and its contents from above as it were, as in a bird's-eye view sort of detached perspective. Once you get used to it, it's very easy and it gets rid of the pressure, too.

I am sure that I do speak of the idea of a 'mind bomb' as a symbolic rather than literal reality. But, I do think that this also raises the larger question of whether life after death is literal or symbolic? I remember the first query I ever had about the idea of life after death was by a Christian writer, CS Lewis, who suggested that life after death would be about existing in the mind of God. I was about 14 at the time of reading of this idea, and I have never mentioned this particular idea to anyone until this moment, but as it comes from within Christianity, I raise it now, for you to consider, and in the context of wider debate about consciousness and the idea of life after death.

A technique that I taught myself during preparation for exams was to imagine myself as a small point of light far above my head and looking down on my thoughts, body and other objects around me. I don't know whether this was under the influence of Platonism but it helped me to achieve a remarkable degree of detachment, focus and clarity of mind and I later read similar statements by Augustine and other writers directly or indirectly influenced by Platonism.

As for life after death being an existence in the mind of God this, again, would be consistent with Platonism. The only question is what would be the exact nature and form of that existence. This is where different traditions tend to diverge which is not surprising considering that there would be a virtually infinite range of intellectual and spiritual development and of conditions and situations different souls may find themselves in at any given moment in time and space.

The biggest question which I would have about the idea of CS Lewis, is what would it mean to exist in the mind of God, especially as many challenge the idea of God, or have different ideas of God. I believe that so many ideas about God, life, death and all these ideas have broken down so much. On this site, such ideas and their complications, or contradictory aspects are explored in some way, but I do believe that for those who make no connection with philosophy at all, there may be a complete vacuum of meaningless, in which contradictions and gaps in thinking cannot be reconciled at all.

Some people just love to talk endlessly about something they know nothing about. Since it is untethered to any reality we know anything about there is not to restrain such pretenses of profundity ... except intellectual honesty. But such honesty would put an end to the illusion of having said anything meaningful. And so, truth is an unwelcome intrusion on the frictionless fantasy some call "philosophy".