Thread: After you die.

Originally Posted by really

Because existence is just a concept, and automatically just forms the assumption of non-existence. But how can non-existence be true, if truth is sometiing that bears in what exists?

Talked about a lot here:

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=97049



Even if it is a metaphor, it is still a flawed idea of what it's trying to represent. The assumption has no ground to be true.

And yes, being aware of that cold and dark means that you exist and are alive.

Oh, no, I totally get that a black expanse would still be existance. I also get the belief that the universe cannot be broken down into nothing. But there is very little reason to believe that our minds are ejected to this black expanse. And if someone ceases to exist, it is not as if the whole universe will, too. So I don't really see where the argument is going. I mean, if I ate all of the bueberry pies in the world- blueberry pie would no longer exist. Sure, it would exist as a concept. But it would be gone. And yes, the particles in the pie would still exist. But as crap. Not as pie.

To be clear, I don't believe in the non-existance, either. But I don't see a reason why I couldn't be wrong and we did cease to exist at death. But I don't worry about it. If we all just die and that is it, I won't be complaining or feeling dissapointed. I just won't.

That's a trick, though. 'Blueberry pie' is a concept, based on the way the object appears, its chemical arrangements, shape, size, how it grew, etc. When you eat it, you say it becomes crap. Yeah, and the nutrients are extracted in digestion, etc. So it has not become non-existent, the ascribed concept or perception of that object has fallen away because it can no longer connect with reality. But of course, if the thing itself were to suddenly non-exist, there would be no use in eating it. The blueberry pies have merely transformed, and one might argue from the earlier point made that not even that occurs, because that transformation is also based on concepts.

So, how this is relevant to death: Death can only be said as the end of something and the beginning of something else. NOT the end of life and the end of existence, because that's impossible. The notion that "I am the body" is a concept inherited in the ego, it is formed out of a collective perception. If you look it long enough, it cannot be entirely true.

Originally Posted by really

That's a trick, though. 'Blueberry pie' is a concept, based on the way the object appears, its chemical arrangements, shape, size, how it grew, etc. When you eat it, you say it becomes crap. Yeah, and the nutrients are extracted in digestion, etc. So it has not become non-existent, the ascribed concept or perception of that object has fallen away because it can no longer connect with reality. But of course, if the thing itself were to suddenly non-exist, there would be no use in eating it. The blueberry pies have merely transformed, and one might argue from the earlier point made that not even that occurs, because that transformation is also based on concepts.

So, how this is relevant to death: Death can only be said as the end of something and the beginning of something else. NOT the end of life and the end of existence, because that's impossible. The notion that "I am the body" is a concept inherited in the ego, it is formed out of a collective perception. If you look it long enough, it cannot be entirely true.

I agree that non-existance is possible. I also agree that we are all part of a larger picture. But that doesn't mean there aren't individuals. If that were so, you couldn't simplify down to smaller and smaller objects. There is a distiniction between a rabbit and a centipede. There is a distinction between one human and another. And the blueberry pie? Yeah, it is a concept based on chemical arrangments. What is blueberry pie might seem fairly arbitrary because of that. But there is a definition of what a blueberry pie is. And it no longer meets that definition after it is eaten. So, the 'chemical arrangement' turns into something else after it is eaten. It is no longer pie.

All lifeforms are chemical arrangments. That is what they are.

Okay. Look at it this way. We are all cogs in a clock. When one of the mechanisms breaks down, the mechanism is removed, melted down for scrap metal, and then infused with other metal and gears and stuff. Then the mechanism is put back into the clock. The clock the old mechanism was part of still functions. The material in that old mechanism is re-used. But that particular mechanism is still gone forever. It will never exist as that mechanism again. It is something else entirely. We die and are replaced. I am not saying that we cease to exist. But I am saying it is a possibility.

Personally I don't really worry about it. I'm pretty sure there's no heaven or hell, only nothingness. And with nothingness only nothingness can be percieved... which sounds kind of wierd. So essentially the only time nothingness matters in when there's somethingness... which is now! So If you don't worry about nothingness while there's somethingness then when the somethingness is gone there'll be nothingness to percieve and it won't matter to you. See what I mean? Death only matters when you're alive, so just don't worry about it till your dead... 'cause when your dead you can't be sad or scared.

That's my style anyways.

Originally Posted by spockman

I agree that non-existance is possible. I also agree that we are all part of a larger picture. But that doesn't mean there aren't individuals. If that were so, you couldn't simplify down to smaller and smaller objects. There is a distiniction between a rabbit and a centipede. There is a distinction between one human and another. And the blueberry pie? Yeah, it is a concept based on chemical arrangments. What is blueberry pie might seem fairly arbitrary because of that. But there is a definition of what a blueberry pie is. And it no longer meets that definition after it is eaten. So, the 'chemical arrangement' turns into something else after it is eaten. It is no longer pie.

All lifeforms are chemical arrangments. That is what they are.

Okay. Look at it this way. We are all cogs in a clock. When one of the mechanisms breaks down, the mechanism is removed, melted down for scrap metal, and then infused with other metal and gears and stuff. Then the mechanism is put back into the clock. The clock the old mechanism was part of still functions. The material in that old mechanism is re-used. But that particular mechanism is still gone forever. It will never exist as that mechanism again. It is something else entirely. We die and are replaced. I am not saying that we cease to exist. But I am saying it is a possibility.

Yes, those are all true as far as the body is concerned, but I think what he's getting at (correct me if Im wrong really) is that our consciousness is something as well, this is assuming that consciousness isnt just some function of the brain though. So, when you die, your consciousness doesnt cease to exist, it will just become something else like physical objects becoming rearranged.

Thats what I got out of it anyways, this subject scares me, mainly because I really dont want to stop experiencing things. If your consciousness really does just cease after your brain dies that means you cant experience anything anymore, or ever again. That scares me the most.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

Yes, those are all true as far as the body is concerned, but I think what he's getting at (correct me if Im wrong really) is that our consciousness is something as well, this is assuming that consciousness isnt just some function of the brain though. So, when you die, your consciousness doesnt cease to exist, it will just become something else like physical objects becoming rearranged.

That is somewhat true, but consciousness isn't what changes. If needed it moves on to something else when the body dies, but the consciousness is essentially the same. Its quality may shift but for the scope of the discussion, just consider that it is the same. The life changes but you don't, in other words.

Non-existence is not possible for existence itself. It is only possible in concepts. And distinctions, individuals and separate existences also only exist in concepts. Existence altogether is sourced in consciousness. If you think you are the body, you have fear and vulnerability because the body is vulnerable to death. That is a waste of time.

Thats what I got out of it anyways, this subject scares me, mainly because I really dont want to stop experiencing things. If your consciousness really does just cease after your brain dies that means you cant experience anything anymore, or ever again. That scares me the most.

Maybe you should look into afterlife, re-incarnation, OBEs and those kind of things. Experience may change, but that capacity in and of your consciousness cannot be destroyed.

Bottom line is, you become nothing and can not think about being nothing because you are nothing. I think death will be like fainting or knocking yourself out. It'll just happen, and you'll have no sense of time when you are in such a state.

Originally Posted by really

Maybe you should look into afterlife, re-incarnation, OBEs and those kind of things. Experience may change, but that capacity in and of your consciousness cannot be destroyed.

what do you mean by the capacity in and of my consciousness?

Do note that astral projection does not prove an afterlife.

Originally Posted by Loaf

Bottom line is, you become nothing and can not think about being nothing because you are nothing. I think death will be like fainting or knocking yourself out. It'll just happen, and you'll have no sense of time when you are in such a state.

Really, the bottom line is that this is just an idea. Analyze how can death be possible? Not even getting knocked out is the same as becoming nothing. Nothing that exists can become nothing! It either transforms, or it never changes at all.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

what do you mean by the capacity in and of my consciousness?

The capacity that is intrinsic to consciousness of all experience is essentially the capacity to know, prior to all other knowledge. The root of awareness.

But there is nothing to transform because there is nothing there.
Sure, you could say that there is no such thing as nothing, but being open space or atoms or whatever will probably not include any consciousness or realization.

Originally Posted by Loaf

But there is nothing to transform because there is nothing there.
Sure, you could say that there is no such thing as nothing, but being open space or atoms or whatever will probably not include any consciousness or realization.

This seems to be a mixture of levels. First of all, if there's nothing there to begin with, then what's the problem? I.e. No life; no death. And how is death any way like empty space? Does this have anything to do with materialism?

As people, as memories, as consciousness, we become nothing.

You need to back that up somehow, instead of just stating it. How do these things become nothing? How does anything become nothing?

We die, we decompose. Technically we do become something else, but our brains are now gone and we as people are gone too. There is no magical force that can support our consciousness, memories, and everything else.
Think of it like a hard drive. Once a file is deleted, it is removed. It becomes freespace on the disk now, and a new file can be written onto it. But this doesn't mean that it is influenced by the old file, nor holds any of its properties.

I may not be able to prove there is no life after death, but its far more likely and reasonable than saying there is. It is you who needs to prove your beliefs, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Loaf

I may not be able to prove there is no life after death, but its far more likely and reasonable than saying there is. It is you who needs to prove your beliefs, not the other way around.

I concur. If one wishes to suggest that there is an afterlife, one must provide evidence.
The 90 Minutes in Heaven guy was probably experiencing hallucinations due to a lack of oxygen in the brain. Remember, no pulse is not real death, only brain death is real death.
My thought is that, because your brain is no longer functioning, death is like being knocked out, except you don't wake up 3 hours later. I've been KO'd, and it felt like blank. I didn't notice any senses, I couldn't feel time. I couldn't think. I didn't dream. It was the epitome of blankness. I'd be willing to suggest that death is like that, but without waking. It's an end, unless your brain is reactivated, which humans can't do yet.
That is my speculation. In a sense, you're unconscious while dead, so I'm assuming death "feels" like unconsciousness, although saying "feels like unconsciousness" is as ridiculous a statement as saying "looks like invisible." I think it is dishonest to say that there is an afterlife without any solid, concrete evidence in the form of an experiment or an equation or something.

EDIT: Unless you're talking about the body and not the mind, in which case you rot after you die and become a delicious and nutrient-filled meal for bacteria, cannibals, and zombies! Yum.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

Thats what I got out of it anyways, this subject scares me, mainly because I really dont want to stop experiencing things. If your consciousness really does just cease after your brain dies that means you cant experience anything anymore, or ever again. That scares me the most.

That's the part I think is the most fascinating. When you die, you cease to exist. Every concern, every worry, every bad thought or memory, ceases to exist. You won't go mad with boredom thinking to yourself for all of eternity, or getting bored with some fictional afterlife. You just won't be around for anything. Rest in peace is just that...no turmoil, no conflict, no thinking at all. Sounds nice to me.

Originally Posted by Loaf

We die, we decompose. Technically we do become something else, but our brains are now gone and we as people are gone too. There is no magical force that can support our consciousness, memories, and everything else.
Think of it like a hard drive. Once a file is deleted, it is removed. It becomes freespace on the disk now, and a new file can be written onto it. But this doesn't mean that it is influenced by the old file, nor holds any of its properties.

I may not be able to prove there is no life after death, but its far more likely and reasonable than saying there is. It is you who needs to prove your beliefs, not the other way around.

Actually, what I'm asking is more simpler than getting you to prove something. I'm asking you to look into the reasoning you're using. I asked you: how does anything become nothing? Even erasing data on a hard-drive doesn't make it non-existent, it transforms it (and does it really become free space?). My point again, to re-emphasis, is that nothing can actually, absolutely, cease to exist. Things can transform, qualities can shift, but anything that can become non-existent is only part of the abstract concept itself and not truthfully. Therefore, death is not the end; non-existence does not allow for transformation, as it negates the nature of form.

Originally Posted by Mario92

That's the part I think is the most fascinating. When you die, you cease to exist. Every concern, every worry, every bad thought or memory, ceases to exist. You won't go mad with boredom thinking to yourself for all of eternity, or getting bored with some fictional afterlife. You just won't be around for anything. Rest in peace is just that...no turmoil, no conflict, no thinking at all. Sounds nice to me.

You're almost talking about two different kinds of death now. If you mean absolute death, then it also means that "rest in peace" and "sounds nice" can't apply either. In that sense, death is not possible, and these expressions only really mean something when talking about ego-death, which is not the common topic in "after you die" discussions. When people talk about "after you die", they're talking about when the body falls over and the 'life' seemingly vanishes. I'm sure you don't mean that at death you continue to exist, only in peace. That means it's not the death that most people argue about. Everybody would be killing themselves, if that were true.

Originally Posted by really

You're almost talking about two different kinds of death now. If you mean absolute death, then it also means that "rest in peace" and "sounds nice" can't apply either. In that sense, death is not possible, and these expressions only really mean something when talking about ego-death, which is not the common topic in "after you die" discussions. When people talk about "after you die", they're talking about when the body falls over and the 'life' seemingly vanishes. I'm sure you don't mean that at death you continue to exist, only in peace. That means it's not the death that most people argue about. Everybody would be killing themselves, if that were true.

I'm talking about stone cold fang dead. Nothingness. No conscious spark, no thinking, no sense of existing, no senses at all. Just nothingness. Silent nonexistence. Peaceful in the sense that nothing is fucking happening and never will, because you won't be around for anything else ever again.

Originally Posted by really

My point again, to re-emphasis, is that nothing can actually, absolutely, cease to exist. Things can transform, qualities can shift, but anything that can become non-existent is only part of the abstract concept itself and not truthfully. Therefore, death is not the end; non-existence does not allow for transformation, as it negates the nature of form.

What poor logic.
Yes, you are right. Technically, we don't become nothing. But we don't remember how things were in our previous form, so we aren't going to remember how things are now in our next. And I can certainly say that whatever our next form is, it probably won't be much more interesting than nothing anyway.

Originally Posted by Mario92

I'm talking about stone cold fang dead. Nothingness. No conscious spark, no thinking, no sense of existing, no senses at all. Just nothingness. Silent nonexistence. Peaceful in the sense that nothing is fucking happening and never will, because you won't be around for anything else ever again.

If you can say its 'peaceful' or 'silent', it's not non-existence. Non-existence = not possible. That's the point, and that's why it seemed like you were mixing concepts of death, because there's no death that actually makes one become non-existent.

Originally Posted by Loaf

What poor logic.
Yes, you are right. Technically, we don't become nothing. But we don't remember how things were in our previous form, so we aren't going to remember how things are now in our next. And I can certainly say that whatever our next form is, it probably won't be much more interesting than nothing anyway.

Well I guess that's down to your own opinion whether it's interesting or not, and memory doesn't really mean anything either, as these aspects of our personality tend to create perspectives that are reducible to inaccurate assumptions.

Originally Posted by really

If you can say its 'peaceful' or 'silent', it's not non-existence. Non-existence = not possible. That's the point, and that's why it seemed like you were mixing concepts of death, because there's no death that actually makes one become non-existent.

What arbitrary silliness. Silence: lack of sound. Peaceful: not disturbed by strife or turmoil or war. If you have no brain, no consciousness, and basically cease to exist, both of these are true. You won't be thinking so, because you can't, because you're dead. You won't perceive death as being silent or peaceful. You just won't exist. You won't have the means to detect sound, and you won't have the brain to process war or any sort of inner turmoil, which died when you did.

Originally Posted by Mario92

That's the part I think is the most fascinating. When you die, you cease to exist. Every concern, every worry, every bad thought or memory, ceases to exist. You won't go mad with boredom thinking to yourself for all of eternity, or getting bored with some fictional afterlife. You just won't be around for anything. Rest in peace is just that...no turmoil, no conflict, no thinking at all. Sounds nice to me.

It is fascinating, but at the same time...like I said, I really dont want to stop experiencing anything. Maybe my opinion will be different in 80 years (if Im lucky) when Im all feeble and broken down and such...but atm in one sense it is fascinating and in the other..sometimes I dont sleep well at night thinking about it >.>

Originally Posted by Mario92

What arbitrary silliness. Silence: lack of sound. Peaceful: not disturbed by strife or turmoil or war. If you have no brain, no consciousness, and basically cease to exist, both of these are true. You won't be thinking so, because you can't, because you're dead. You won't perceive death as being silent or peaceful. You just won't exist. You won't have the means to detect sound, and you won't have the brain to process war or any sort of inner turmoil, which died when you did.

Silence is something that exists whether sound is present or not, just like peace prevails whether there is war or not. The former essentially contextualizes the latter, and both derive from existence. You cannot "play" silence, nor you cannot "create" peace, but both actually exist in either case, regardless of belief or viewpoint.

If non-existence was absolutely true, there'd be nothing to possibly ascribe to what it is. If you ceased to exist, there'd be nobody to perceive anything, nothing to be true, nothing to report and nothing to be possible. If anything, you can only talk about emptiness, but emptiness is an existent reality that includes both consciousness and arguably, to an extent, observing.