What happens when you die?
If you’re not spiritually-inclined, death is just a moment in time. You’re alive and then, a moment later, you’re dead. There is a cessation of all that makes us physically alive: we stop breathing, our blood circulation halts and finally our brain activity flat-lines — we are deceased.
And medically speaking that is true. Your time is up; the grains of sand have emptied and the ticking has ceased.
On the other hand, if you believe in some kind of soul, something beyond the world that we can see and measure scientifically, death is more of a way-point on your travels. You might believe that heaven awaits, or that your soul takes a little trip before returning back to the physical realm, but it doesn’t really matter: you believe that death isn’t the end of your story.
What we really have to do is define ‘death’, a task that many people would claim is very easy: it’s body death; a flat line on both the ECG (heart) and EEG (brain) machines. Someone whispers into our ear or shines a light into our eyes and there is no response, no reflex — that’s body death. But then why are there billions of people that believe that we’re not actually dead, that our soul has simply left the building in search of other stomping grounds or greener pastures? Death is meant to be the end! And it is for every other animal and plant in the world! Why does it have to be so tricky when it comes to humans, why do we persist in refuting death? Why do we insist that we ‘live on’?
Maybe, just possibly, there’s something to it. Perhaps there is a soul. Perhaps body death isn’t the end! What if we are just poorly-equipped to define ‘death’ scientifically? What if science simply refuses, by definition, to acknowledge something that is impossible to measure and define?
But then why is more than half of Earth’s population so strongly opposed to the finality of death? Why, for thousands of years, have we tried to define life after death? For millennia we have struggled to elucidate what really goes on after death as we traverse the great unknown — and curiously, after 6,000 years of modern civilisation, we still don’t even know how to get there! Attaining spiritual immortality in ancient history and religion reads like a hilarious list of scatter-gun, maybe-this-will-work approaches. First, right at the cusp of recorded history, there were deified statues and bloody rituals. Then with the first great civilisations we had burial rites and coins on our eyelids to ensure our safe passage into the afterlife. The Dark Ages saw a change from polytheism to monotheism and it became more about repentance, seeking forgiveness for our sins and regimented worship. Finally, with the Middle Ages and the glorious, opulent lives of feudal nobility and merchant oligarchies, immortality could be obtained by paying someone that’s close enough to an Almighty Being — i.e. buy some new stained-glass windows and you’re in.
The problem is: they can’t all be right. Is obtaining life after death simply a matter of mentally flagellating or prostrating yourself before the eyes of a suitably-powerful deity? Almost all religions claim that that they are correct and infallible, their scriptures often divined or prophesied from a god. They don’t all claim that other religions are false but most do — my god is more goddy than yours! — which causes a little problem: who’s right? Are they all right? Or, as I’m inclined to believe, are they all wrong? I won’t turn this into a theological discussion, but I do want to work out which religion got it right because the concept of everlasting life must be pretty enthralling if five billion people want to believe in it.
In fact, the concept that we might simply cease to exist, both body and soul (if it exists!), is a relatively new concept. An enlightened concept that we’ve been scared of acknowledging all along, just in case it’s true. We’ve finally arrived back at the stage where challenging or disproving religion doesn’t end up with you being burnt at the stake. We’re finally at the point where we can question our existence in this universe with some semblance of objectivity. Pure and absolute rationality is still a little way off — maybe quantum mechanics has the real answers? — but we can still revisit with a critical eye, unfettered by either dogma or tradition, the concept of allaying or postponing our ultimate death.
Science has gone a long way to explaining many things we’ve historically considered ‘magical’ or ‘miraculous’ but there are still many unknowns. There are a whole slew of phenomena that can be explained by the existence of a ‘spiritual universe’ too — in fact, it’s a very good way of explaining away almost anything that remains a mystery to us. Eventually though — and this is guaranteed — someone will get to the bottom of near-death experiences and the continued consciousness that people experience throughout brain death. In a truly ‘eureka!’ moment a scientist will discover exactly what happens, if anything, when we die.
It’ll feel like the unravelling of the greatest of magic tricks: one of the few remaining mysteries of human existence ripped apart and laid bare for all to see. And then, like all exploited magic — or technology — it’ll just become a ubiquitous part of everyday life: if we do have souls, we’ll make glorious plans for the afterlife; if we don’t we’ll be able to finally stop wasting our time trying to earn and validate our ticket to the afterlife.
I hope people won’t be too disappointed when they find out that all those years of prayer and sacrifice and unwavering belief were for nothing. The Norse and Greek had the right idea: perform amazing deeds of strength and bravery, kindness and mercy. Achieve immortality through renown alone. Of course, they also knew that if any gods just happened to be watching they were hitting two birds with one stone.
Bunny
Jul 6, 2009
Humans are the only animals who don’t live in the ‘now.’
We regret things that have happened, we concern ourselves over what’s to come. Squirrels don’t spend their lives worrying over ‘what’ll happen to the kids when I’m gone?!’ and llamas don’t sit there wishing they’d gone about something differently last week.
Some of us have to have somthing to believe in, because it’d drive us mad to think that this is it. This is the one shot you get.
All we do is worry about what’s happened and what’s to come, and often miss what’s most important….what’s going on now.
Abi
Jul 6, 2009
Pardon me while I engage my brain. It is not due to happen until about 12.00.
On the topic of souls- are you aware of the 21 gram phenomenon?. I believe it is a discredited study, but in terms of belief v fact it is certainly worth mentioning. If nothing it lends weight (21g I am told!) to the soul having left the building point you made. It underscores the belief of “going on” and for some, makes the bitter and depressing pill of THE END somewhat easier to swallow. Which I am sure, science and fact aside- is the reason for all the speculation/ ritual and spiritual theories.
I guess it is fundamental human nature in that the only thing we truly know is that we will die. No one can tell us what happens when we get there, or how much we will weigh when we do. Medical science tells us the hard facts, as far as they can go. But I suppose all the theories, however rational is simply born of a very human desire to reassure ourselves that however painless, bleak or dramatic the end will be. It simply has to be something MORE than just the end.
Someone once told me that the soul, (or rather belief in its remainder) is the biggest ego trip going. You only have to look at all the hoo- ha surrounding death to see that. However pragmatic we are regarding the death of loved ones etc, many will find themselves clinging to the last vestiges of this belief because it does what it says on the tin. It makes the pain easier knowing about a better place (or rather better for us.. these things are self defined during our life), which goes some way to describe why a lot of people find religion in the final days of their life. As humans we like to hedge our bets because maybe… just maybe.. we could be wrong. The theory could be disproved at the very last second.
And imagine going on and finding THAT out.
Helen
Jul 6, 2009
You can’t make me think about these sort of things on a Monday morning! I’ve only had one cup of coffee! I’m not ready!!!
To tell the truth I’m not nearly as bothered by the concept of what happens when we die as I am bothered by the attitudes of people who are convinced that they have the answer and everyone else is wrong. It’s even worse when they’re convinced that everyone else is wrong without bothering to find out about what the other person is saying. It’s a nasty case of “your beliefs are different to mine and therefore must be wrong by default.”
Like the “I don’t know anything about evolution, but I know it is evil.” people. DRIVE ME NUTS!!!
blue soup
Jul 6, 2009
Are you sure that death is final for plants and animals? What is to say that there isn’t a meerkat on the semiarid plains of south Africa hoping that it’ll be reincarnated as a goat?
sebastian
Jul 6, 2009
I knew I should’ve clarified that a bit, Soup — what I meant is that, for animals, they either reach everlasting life, or not. There is no inbetween. No will-they-won’t-they. They don’t have to leave nuts at the base of the right tree to make sure they are accepted into Heaven — you get the idea. This whole complicated affair of ‘getting there’ is a very human thing…!
Bunny: surely there’s a reason we care so much about our friends and family when we die, or they die? It’s obviously something I can’t get my head around objectively, being human and all. But these things usually have a grain of truth SOMEWHERE…
I agree that it’s almost certainly a coping mechanism. Somehow, back in the olden days, when we were hunter gatherers and we hardly spoke a word, I doubt that there were complicated burial rites for our family members that die. It definitely feels like a ‘higher order’ activity, which probably isn’t a bad thing — we wouldn’t have evolved into it, if it was bad?
But the afterlife isn’t any more or less real than 10,000 years ago. It either exists or doesn’t exist. That’s the bit I don’t get. Do modern religious types really think they are entering the afterlife with a cleaner soul than Roman soldiers? Hmmm.
AGD
Jul 6, 2009
Southampton University is part of a big study ito this sort of thing. They’ve hidden a load of objects around hospital wards which can, in theory, only be spotted from the ceiling. If anyone nearly dies, they can then quiz them on their floating-soul experiences; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7621608.stm
Souls just aren’t empirical objects, so no scientific study can hope to answer their existence, sadly. This might amount to saying there’s no such thing.
re: Abi; Strictly speaking, we don’t know that we ourselves will die, though we have plenty of good evidence that humans are the sorts of things that die. It’s impossible to imagine ourselves after death in any meaningful way, because it’s impossible to comprehend what it would be not to be.
On a similar note, here’s the full text of Being & Time, Sebby;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7253536
get to it.
sebastian
Jul 6, 2009
Well, I’m almost through The Prince by Machiavelli, so that’ll give me something to get my teeth stuck into! Someone needs to come and save me if grey ooze starts to seep from my ears though…
Empirical evidence is of course hard to come by; as you say, ‘no such thing’. But ascertaining a ‘thingness’ (an existence) obviously requires our tools to be at a level suitable enough to measure it! i.e. there was ‘no such thing’ as atoms until a couple of hundred years ago. But things move on. I think it’s fairly obvious that something is going on beyond what we can currently measure. Be it quantum mechanics or a spiritual universe, who knows — I think ‘the spirit’ is just a good way of tidying up all of our unknowns. Whether that’s an evolutionary bonus or just religion taking advantage of us, I don’t know
AGD
Jul 6, 2009
The difference between souls and atoms is that the later is, in principle, discoverable with sufficiently good tools. Souls aren’t, because they’re posited as something utterly immaterial. Even if we found something peculiar which quit the body upon death, there’s nothing to say it would be the soul; it may well be some other thing.
This is a similar problem to the materialist account of mind. Even if we found the exact pattern of synapses which corresponded to “the happiness one feels when drinking coffee”, that would explain nothing at all of what it is to experience that particular happiness. The further difficulty is that we know what that “coffee-happy” is like but we struggle to really describe the soul.
sebastian
Jul 6, 2009
I think you are stuck too much in the ‘now’, which is fair enough as science really is only about what is true right here, right now. ‘Dark matter’ is posited as something immaterial too, but we don’t question its existence because its effects can be measured. Lots of things are outside our ability to measure and judge right now, but it doens’t mean they don’t exist! We acknowledge that there is still things we don’t know about the universe. Often these things get swept under the blanket of ‘spirituality’ (or witchcraft, if you want to go back a little).
The religious types stipulate that the soul must be utterly immaterial but that doesn’t mean it is! As you say, it might not be ‘the soul’ that quits after death — but just the fact that something is there, something we haven’t yet got to grips with, means we have something left to learn about this particular topic.
Chase
Jul 6, 2009
good stuff, friend.
I love your point about our (relatively) new-found ability to challenge religion (without the fear of “martyrdom”). Coming from a bit of a “goddy”-minded stance (as you recently discovered about me), I would add that if there is a God (or, to be fair, gods), that God(/s) should be able to handle anything we death-prone humans could toss.
I also like that you recognized the ‘unknowns’ of life, though I would venture from your stance here, and say that I personally think there will always be unknowns. I don’t believe science will ever disprove the existence of Soul/Spirit World/God, and I don’t believe it will ever prove, undoubtedly, the existence there of. I’m willing to let it happen if it does, and if I’m wrong, I’ll certainly admit it (which ever side the coin falls there) but, I just believe that some things will always be a Mystery. I came to this realization a few years back, and have learned to be content therein.
I don’t feel as though I need to know everything. I’ve learned to let Mystery be Mystery, and that some matters of life are best dealt with the amount of rational we can muster and, dare I say, a pinch of faith. Take the origin of the earth/universe for example. No one was there. At least not anyone currently willing to give their first hand account. Theories, Science, Beliefs… stack ‘em all up, and the best we can do is draw all the reasoning together in a nice neat package, and make our decision on (dare I go there again…) faith.
…or keep quiet and not push that issue. I tend to lean in this direction… though I fit somewhere closer to the middle. Nonetheless, I find this topic, and the one you wrote about, some of the most crucial, if not most interesting of topics in our human existence.
sebastian
Jul 6, 2009
Ah, but that’s dangerous! That’s almost apathy!
I haven’t really worked out the fine differences between ‘just got to have faith’ and ‘apathy’, but I think there are certainly some correlations.
Someone two hundred years ago might have thought the same as you: that we’d never get to the bottom of why lightning kills people, or why various chemicals explode when mixed together. Some people just ‘let it lie’, while others weren’t happy with that!
But perhaps, not being religious myself, I don’t quite appreciate how ‘mind blowing’ it all is. Perhaps, when you let the concept of God into your life, you need to draw some lines. You need to chalk some things up as ‘just because’. Maybe that’s the only way religious types make it through life. Or perhaps keeping some things unexplained is just another way of keeping the faith!
I think it’s incredibly unlikely that the soul (whatever it turns out to be) has absolutely no energy, no mass, no substance. Everything in this world (at least, the world we know!) is made of energy. Some kind of force.
Of course, once we get back to the Big Bang and find out what happened before there was energy… well, maybe there is something in the great beyond…
floreta
Jul 6, 2009
i can count on you, seb, for starting off monday with a deep topic!
the “they can’t all be right” aspect is a very atheistic argument. i viewed The Atheist Tape interviews and they were talking of the exact same thing.. and it’s also crossed my mind when i considered myself atheist.. which made me feel quite smart when i realized these great atheistic scientists w/ the likes of Dawkins were saying the same thing!
i wouldn’t say the view that there is nothing that happens after death to be an enlightened one! That’s just opinion; one perspective of many! One could say the opposite could be enlightened just as well.. Say most of the world is atheist/agnostic (right now, it’s not, but lets just pretend for the sake of a point..)… well then, the “enlightened” view would be the idea of soul and afterlife! i think “enlightenment” is just a word thrown out there for an uncommon view. and whichever way the collective world shakes, could set what counts for “enlightenment” these days. what i’m saying is, “enlightenment” (the concept thereof) is not fixed! it is constantly changing along with society.
as for quantum physics.. i think it is the closest science for explaining ‘the spiritual’. i’ve read a lot of science/spiritual books and all very interesting (The Biology of Belief, for one. The Tao of Physics!!). I don’t think that science could ever fully prove OR disprove the spiritual. Though I think it can come close.. and science just tells us what (some) people intuitively “know” anyway. This just in: Blueberries are GOOD for you!
Also, i think scientists have tried measuring the ‘soul’ by weighing a person after they die and finding that a person weighs less which means the ‘soul’ has left the body. all rather silly if you ask me. But, there is a scientific explanation for the “light” people report seeing in near death experiences.. something to do with the chemicals in the brain.. synapses.. and the like. but could the science be one view and the spiritual be a different way of looking at the SAME thing?? can both exist or coexist? i think of life as a rational view and an intuitive view.. and that encompasses science vs. spiritual.. and i often think both views are ‘right’ … or even explaining the same things.. with just different language!
Jill Pilgrim
Jul 6, 2009
Its funny because I was actually having this conversation with my husband just the other day. He is a practicing Catholic, and I am, um, not. I subscribe more to the ideas of theoretical physicists than to The Bible, when it comes to the big questions regarding Before and After. My personal beliefs are rather complicated, and my husband’s are much more cut and dry. I envy that. I think life is simpler when you have a firm belief in what comes after, what it means to be a good person, what the world expects of you.
I recently caught this series on NPR, The Science of Spirituality, and it really made me think in a much broader sense about the benefit of spiritual beliefs to humans.
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/2009/brain/
Jaime
Jul 6, 2009
Maybe this is selfish, but when someone I care about dies I don’t cry for THEM. I cry for ME. There’s no use crying for something that’s over. I cry because I no longer have them in my life and I have to deal with the pain.
I was raised Catholic and for a long time I’ve protested the existence of God, for more than half my life. I’ve recently started praying for the first time and I’ve noticed that it makes me feel better. It makes me feel good. I don’t do it to get into Heaven or to atone for my ‘sins’. I do it because it FEELS good. Also probably selfish, but all you’re guaranteed in life is yourself, and life is mine to make what I want of it.
Something else I’ve noticed is that humans, myself included, tend to think that there was A Beginning. Something in our brains simply can’t wrap itself around the notion that something just is, that it had no beginning and has just existed for eternity.
sebastian
Jul 6, 2009
Thanks for the link, Jill! Had a little poke around — seems like a topic that’s being researched quite heavily at the moment! I’ve always loved the fact that many scientists and philosophers are devoutly religious — there’s something pretty cool about strict Jews poking around in a brain looking for the bit that made Moses into a prophet…
A common description of religion is that it’s just a way of providing safe passage for the masses through the tumult of real life. Thus the ten commandments and the ‘common sense’ aspect of many religions. It certainly feels like we got to the stage where we had too many questions, too many unknowns, and suddenly religion appeared.
That’s not a bad thing in itself, but some of the offshoots are. Like Christians claiming Islam is false scripture, and vice versa. They are either both true, or both false. Either way, both sets of followers have absolutely nothing they can argue about.
God, I don’t know. There’s obviously some DEEP URGE to believe in explanations of the mystical, and that causes religion. But the urge to kill one another in the name of their god(s)… I assume that’s another thing entirely and I wonder if the world would be a better place without religion.
Floreta — I was using Enlightenment here as a slight reference to the philosophical period in the 18th century. It was an enlightened view for the time, all things considered — that’s what matters!
sebastian
Jul 6, 2009
Jaime — well, there undoubtedly was a beginning. Whether we (our souls?) were created then or not, I don’t know. I find it very hard to believe that there was a moment when nothing existed, and then everything. But… if that’s how it went, so be it!
You can’t begin to understand how excited I am about the Large Hadron Collider and what it might soon show us. I think a lot of ideas and preconceptions that we’ve had for thousands of years, in some form or another, are about to be shattered. It’s going to be quite exciting
Jill Pilgrim
Jul 6, 2009
Jaime- I think there are lots of people that pray because it feels good. Prayer (or meditation) changes your brain. Its the idea of neuroplasticity. You center yourself, you are calm, you are focused whether there is a God or not, you’ve started a process in your brain that can be very positive.*
*Neuroplasticity can of course go the other way. I suppose if your God is vengeful and hate filled (Son of Sam?) it can do awful things to your brain.
Hezabelle
Jul 6, 2009
Topics like this are why I’ve always been a horrible philosopher – it makes my brain hurt to try to think about what existence and death are. Philosophy is the only part of Classics I don’t do.
It’s so interesting, though, to read not only your take on it but also everyone else’s comments. And the article that AGD linked to was really cool!
Just Playing Pretend
Jul 6, 2009
“I hope people won’t be too disappointed when they find out that all those years of prayer and sacrifice and unwavering belief were for nothing.”
This sentence is why my belief does waver. I’m not one who can place all my faith on a feeling or personal belief. My faith isn’t that storng and there is just isn’t enough belief in this body for that.
Deep Monday topic. My brain hurts.
Sarah
Jul 6, 2009
I was just thinking about all this on my morning drive, really! I have never been very religious… but a friend of my parents died this weekend, very young. It was a sad accident. And for some reason it got me thinking… I’ve never really been close with anyone who has died. I mean, I had grandparents die when I was very young… but besides that, not really. I’ve never even been to a funeral. So I was wondering this morning if death is going to be harder to swallow for me, since I don’t have any real religious ties. It would be so much easier to accept the death of a loved one if you could really believe they were watching over you… or still around, just somewhere else. So, this morning, I was wondering what I’ll do when I come to that crossroad. I don’t think I’ll become religious… I mean, I’m not right now, it would be wrong to turn that way because of fear or something… anyway. It was kind of nice to read through your pragmatic response to the question. And all the comments. Sometimes it’s nice to know that other people think about all the things you think about… especially when you live in the Southern US, where it sometimes feels like you’re the only one who has questions about religion. This blog is so provocative. Enjoyably so
Hannah
Jul 6, 2009
So I started reading this just as “I will follow you into the dark” came on…weird.
I’m cool with not knowing. I mean, I will know some day. I’ll know if there is a heaven, a hell, or a Jesus when I die and I see them. And if there’s not, I’ll be too busy not existing anymore to know. So yea, I’m just gonna focus on what I do know and what Dear Science can show/teach me.
Jesus, God, and the afterlife are nice ideas…or not so nice, depending on which peice of literature you’re reading, but logically and rationally they don’t add up for me. (feel free to roast marshmallows over my burning body)
Sarah
Jul 7, 2009
I’ve never been the religious type but growing up I always assumed there was an afterlife. Looking back on it now though, I only thought that way because I was afraid that there WASN’T, and I didn’t want to scare myself. I seriously doubt there is an afterlife, but I still find it fascinating that so many people think there is. Not to mention all of the ghost hunting possibilities.
Chase
Jul 7, 2009
See, I don’t feel faith is something that is inactive. I feel faith is the necessary jump in logic that we make after we have as many “facts” “proofs” and “reasons” we can muster. Faith is the next step, not the decision to sit down or disengage. Sure, some people use their faith as an excuse to disengage, but the same could be said about how some people use their atheism. Then again, stating it like that implies that Atheism doesn’t require faith…
I tend to believe that being an atheist takes as much faith as anything else. To say nothing became energy became BANG here we are (give or take a few million years) seems to be a heck of a logic jump for me. I just can’t get there. Then again… in my experience, most atheists tend to disengage from that bit of he conversation…
But we’re off topic now. We were talking about the end of life, and here we are bringing up the beginning.
On the soul: I feel as though acknowledging a possible existence for the Spirit World is in fact acknowledging that there is more than the physical/visible world we know. (Yeah, I know, your flashing cop-out alarm is going off right now…but…) the definition of an other-ly/spirit realm is that it is, namely, not physical. It seems to me trying to track/prove/measure/find said spirit-force with physical tools could be somewhat futile. It’s pretty difficult to measure water on a flat spring scale; unless of course you have a cup.
Personally, I don’t believe we will find said tools that will prove or disprove beyond doubt. Part of the struggle of human existence is that there will always be some who believe in “more” than the physical (and the various mythos there in), and some that don’t. Differing opinions. They’ve been around for awhile, and I don’t see us evolving past it any time soon.
That said, science and technology has done some pretty cool stuff lately. And I certainly encourage the exploration and discussion. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong here, and that tool will be found. I’m not very scientifically inclined; philosophically, sure, but science? Not so much. However, if ever I am shown the undoubted proof, I’ll gladly retract that statement in laud of the findings.
In the meantime… I feel what we are (all) left with is faith. What we each choose to put that faith in differs. The only other option is inactive disengagement. And, unfortunately for the thinkers like you and I, good sir, I fear the majority of humanity (the modern western world not in the least) have chosen that option and muddied up the waters for the rest of us.
sebastian
Jul 10, 2009
OK! I’m finally here and responding. It’s not going to be a big ol’ response though because I really ought to be packing, and then trying to shift my sleeping pattern enough that I can wake up early on Monday to catch my flight to the Faroes! (From going to bed at 4am to waking up at 8am… ugh).
Meditation is definitely good for you, as is prayer. But the bit that gets me is: doens’t prayer spark parts of the brain into action that are usually involved with divine inspiration and stuff…? The temporal lobe maybe? Whatever: the point is, maybe we prayed first, and belief in a god or gods came later…? Maybe, when praying, we open ourselves up to the concept of faith in some kind of almighty being? And those that don’t pray, the atheists and agnostics, never have the brain activity that is conducive to belief…?
Hmmm!
Chase, I think the problem with the ‘spiritual world being non-physical’ idea is… well… it just depends on your definition of ‘physical’! If you mean things you can see and touch and GRASP, then yes, of course! Our physical world is almost entirely defined by our tools. For a particle physicist, I assure you atoms are ‘physical’ entities. To you and I, it’s off in the world of ‘things too tiny to think/worry about’.
But soon we’ll have fusion reactors in our home (or in our heads) powering the most amazing devices you can’t begin to contemplate.
And one day, the spiritual world (whatever it forms it takes) will probably be understood enough that we have tools and devices that interact with it. I think EVERYTHING is made of energy. And energy means, ultimately, it’s measurable, comprehensible and one day… physical enough for us to see and touch and play around with!
Brandon Malave
Jul 13, 2009
“But ascertaining a ‘thingness’ (an existence) obviously requires our tools to be at a level suitable enough to measure it! i.e. there was ‘no such thing’ as atoms until a couple of hundred years ago.”
I thought this above was well said.
I personally do not believe in an afterlife, not that I don’t hope it’s real, but being that anesthetics, with the right dosage, seem to shut down consciousness – I can only imagine what death does.
It’s tough to make sense of certain things, especially when nowadays scientists seem to inject their views into their findings (Dr. Novella for one).
I have always had trouble making sense of the inner private world we have, even if we sat alone in the dark we are able to bring about thoughts and information without depending on our senses for that moment. Our internal reflective side that can arise seemingly under our own volition. Not like the typical way we interact with the world(external data being filtered by our senses and transmitted to our brain, neurons storing data, proteins solidifying memories).
That is what drives me crazy, what drives the inner world, what moves it. I can accept that our inner world is simply a rearrangement of existing data already stored in our neurons. But I wish we understood more what drives the rearrangement/assessment of that data when we are not depending on our senses to filer in information at that very moment of reflection. It always brings me back to Chalmers. Why aren’t we zombies?
Sorry if this was a bit off topic. You caught me in my ranting mood.