What Actually Happens When You Die...

[Story]

I've been thinking really hard about how to address this topic without being misunderstood and here goes...

It seems to me that people believe in a sort of soul of the self (I don't, just making that clear). I'm not talking about theists either, atheists too, perhaps it's mostly apathy on the topic that makes it so or possibly because it's impossible to truly determine consciousnesses of anyone other than yourself.

Now I'm going to have to define what I mean with a few words here, but my goal initially is to demonstrate to you how your current understanding of your own consciousness maybe soul-like.

Definitions

Consciousness
When I use this word I only mean to elucidate the phenomenon of which you are aware of within yourselves (not others). You see from your own eyes and think with your own brain, regardless of whether you have control over your actions; even if free will is an illusion it's your brain that you're perceiving this from, not someone else's.

"Soul" (With quote marks)
In no way do I mean this in the conventional sense. We all know souls don't exist (or to be accurate; that there's no reason to believe they do), but I will use the word "soul" to refer to consciousness throughout this essay. The reason for this is because I want to refer to the typical understanding of consciousness in a contemptible way and this fits the glove to me.

Soul (Without quote marks)
The fairy dust substance that basically does the same as the above, but magically instead of naturalistically.

Inspiration

I noticed that a lot of people tend to make assumptions about what happens at death which is based on their understanding of their own "soul". I've commonly heard the arguments "When you die it'd probably be similar to what it was like before you were born." or "It'd be an eternity of nothingness" (or just nothing of nothingness) etc. Whilst I agree with the former, I'm not so sure about the latter, that isn't to say I disagree, I just don't know and yet I know there is no afterlife. (So don't get suspicious of me... yet)

When we talk of these subjects we tend to refer to a "soul" that extinguishes upon death (kind of like how it extinguishes when you sleep). Considering this, we can't help but think of our own "soul"s outside of our life (death).

To me, there's a problem with this soul-ish idea and some of the implications sort of scare me and I don't mean the dying part (it's comforting to know you're going to die when you die). Let me go through some assumptions and considerations I've made on the topic, you can choose to disagree with me on any of these.

Assumptions & Considerations

a) I assume that everyone experiences consciousness. (At least you should do, if you're reading this)

b) I assume your "soul" will always be your "soul". That is to say you will still be conscious of your body even if in 40 years (probably less) all the atoms that your brain is currently made of will have been replaced by other atoms.

c) If someone assembled your exact likeliness, thoughts and memories, this new body would not contain your "soul". I assume a new "soul" (a new consciousness) would have somehow been "created" (developed is probably the right word, but work with me).


if b) is true then your "soul" is not a result of the matter that you're made of. But could still be the result of the configuration of memories and cognition in your brain.

Now consider the following; If b) and c) are true this is almost a paradox... because if your "soul" (your consciousness) is not a result of the matter you're made of, and is a result of the configuration of the matter you are (memories, cognition etc), then the same configuration (same memories) would yield the same "soul", but you would not be conscious of this second body.

This would suggest that your consciousness is neither a result of the matter you're made of nor the configuration of matter you are. This might suggest to some that your "soul" is independent of both matter and physics and is an actual soul in the religious sense, but actually it doesn't. This is what leads me to assumptions d) and e).

d) Your own consciousness is not a result of your configuration of matter (memories, cognition etc) nor the matter itself.

e) Consciousness in general IS a result of configurations of matter.

Before I explain those further however, I urge you to consider what it would be like if b and c were not true.

Firstly, if your "soul" did not always remain your "soul"; if you would not always remain conscious of yourself, then there would be some mechanism in which new "souls" were created. Interestingly enough, you would never be aware of this process. Take this for instance:

There would be no reason to believe that death was only thing that could end your consciousness, there may be other things.

The matter in your body is slowly replaced over time, perhaps there was some mechanism where your consciousness slowly fades away in this time, replacing it with a new one? This new consciousness would believe it was you.

Perhaps every time you slept, your consciousness shut off, killing your "soul" and a new one was born when you woke up, which was basically like another person, but with your memories and thoughts and personality. You would never be aware of this.

But also consider this: If you were cut in half and the other half of you was duplicated and then the new duplicated half was attached to you. Would that be half of a new "soul"? Or still you?

What if your other half was also given a duplicate of your half, would both of them be your consciousness (Your "soul")?

If neither of them were your "soul", they would still believe they were.

If one of them was your "soul", you would know which one was you, but the other would believe it was you too.

If both of them was your "soul", you would have no idea that the both of them were you. (I'll tell you why later)

Also consider this: In your place right now, could be a million different people (actually more). What makes you you? Without concern for your personality or memories, you, right now, are aware of yourself. Even as free will as an illusion, you are reading from your own eyes this text and not another's. Why? Was it the sperm and the ovum? If it were a different sperm or ovum, would you not exist? People from different sperm and ovum (and the same parents) are your siblings and not you... Why does it matter which sperm or ovum was involved in making you?

My answer is : It may not matter.

It shouldn't matter... the only answer that makes sense here is if it doesn't matter. Regardless of which sperm or ovum were the constructs of your conception. You would still be... You will always be.

Why is this?

Firstly, we've already ascertained that your consciousness is not a result of certain matter. Your matter constantly changes, yet if we assume that you remain cognizant of yourself during such changes (you remain you) then any material constructs become irrelevant.

Furthermore the simple concept of an identical twin dismantles the idea that the sperm and ovum yield your "soul" (or consciousness) as you could only be one of the twins, not both... or could you?

Consider this, if you ever were both twins, you would only ever be independently aware that you were one, because the memories and perceptive senses of each twin would be based solely on their own brains not each others. You would never know that you were both... So, yes you could hypothetically be both twins.

About now you're probably wondering why you read this long body of text to hear some odd theory about twins being the same consciousness while being independently unaware of such, if you're annoyed by that, then I'll comfort you with the fact that that isn't the point of this post, my main point is actually something far far more bizarre.

Earlier, I posited that if you were two (sliced in half, duplicated and put back together with the corresponding duplicates) different people you would not be aware of it. This is because as I said before, your brains would be separate, you'd experience different things and only be individually aware of your own experiences. In this scenario, there would be NO way of knowing you were also the other person, there would be no hidden link, no magical connection, this would be the real world where things would need physical properties to communicate things. This brings me to my conclusion.

Conclusion

If we accept:

That no matter which sperm or ovum was involved you would still be.
That your consciousness is not a result of matter or certain configurations of matter.
But that consciousness in general is a direct result of configurations of matter.
And also that if you were more than one person, you could only be independently aware of one.

Then what would follow was the possibility that consciousness in and in itself was NOT something individualized like souls in different people, but more like a phenomenon that was the result of various configurations of matter and that your very own consciousness was not singled out to just your own body but you were every conscious being in existence whilst only being independently aware of each one at a time.

If not... then the soul-like idea of consciousness prevails and there is some mechanism that makes you you and not someone else. Is it the sperm or the ovum? Or the configurations of matter? Is it your DNA?

What makes you you?

You may not be just you... Which I think has grand implications on what happens when you die and possibly the meaning of life it self.

 

[lrkun]

This is deep. I mean, I don't know what happens when we die, nor how I would feel in such a case.

Do you think Cogito Ergo Sum applies in this case? It means I think, therefore I am. I mean it in a way that because we can think, we're able to understand that we're conscious.

Does our inability to focus on something besides our own personal perception of the world benefit us as an individual? as a whole?

Conversely, Does our inability to focus on something besdies our own personal perception of the world to our detriment as an individual? as a whole?

 

[Story]

In some sense I suppose Cogito Ergo Sum does apply. I do think we're conscious, I'm just not sure if individual consciousnesses work in the way they seem too. However you think, you must know that that thought is a result of immutable naturalistic laws, which you have no control over and is the same system that's at work in the brains of every other being in the universe.

 

[lrkun]

In some sense I suppose Cogito Ergo Sum does apply. I do think we're conscious, I'm just not sure if individual consciousnesses are . However you think, you must know that that thought is a result of immutable naturalistic laws, which you have no control over and is the same system that's at work in the brains of every other being in the universe.

We can, of course, grasp the concept of consciousness. But, maybe you should make another definition of consciousness in favor for non individuals. I'm curious about those immutable naturalistic laws. I'm not familiar with them, maybe you should add them in your first thread.

 

[Story]

In some sense I suppose Cogito Ergo Sum does apply. I do think we're conscious, I'm just not sure if individual consciousnesses are . However you think, you must know that that thought is a result of immutable naturalistic laws, which you have no control over and is the same system that's at work in the brains of every other being in the universe.

We can, of course, grasp the concept of consciousness. But, maybe you should make another definition of consciousness in favor for non individuals. I'm curious about those immutable naturalistic laws. I'm not familiar with them, maybe you should add them in your first thread.

What do you mean? Are you saying that there may be something else at play other than physics and maths in the phenomenon that we know to be our very thoughts?

 

[lrkun]

What do you mean? Are you saying that there may be something else at play other than physics and maths in the phenomenon that we know to be our very thoughts?

No. You're correct. I mean, you should use those specific terms instead of using the general term. It makes it easier to understand. In my case, you see, I didn't know that you were talking about physics and math.

---

Since you brought it up, how do you relate math and physics to your thinking? It's not something I'm familiar with. The way I see it, man is like a sponge. What I mean by this is that man has basic ways of interacting with the world, it is subject to his or her genetics, and then trial and error or experiment when he or she interacts with his or her environment or others.

 

[Story]

Since you brought it up, how do you relate math and physics to your thinking? It's not something I'm familiar with. The way I see it, man is like a sponge. What I mean by this is that man has basic ways of interacting with the world, it is subject to his or her genetics, and then trial and error or experiment when he or she interacts with his or her environment or others.

Well, I presume our actions are based on what goes on in our brains. Pyschology, which is just a product of biochemistry really, which put simply is just biology and that is just applied chemistry, which is just applied physics and math.

 

[lrkun]

Do you recall the first time you became conscious? I mean that you're able to think? Maybe if we analyse how you did it, we can see things better with respect to this "soul".

 

[Story]

Do you recall the first time you became conscious? I mean that you're able to think? Maybe if we analyse how you did it, we can see things better with respect to this "soul".

No... I have no memory of it, but I presume it was a gradual process.

 

[Cabbo]

I disagree with the assumption you made of point b) (not point b) itself, although of that I am unsure).

You state that because matter is (let's assume) replaced in the brain, then the "soul" cannot be held within that matter. I say that there is nothing special about any particular atom, and it is the way in which they are arranged that creates a "soul". So the replacement of matter in the brain does not affect the overall structure of it, and it is the structure which dictates our consciousness. Consciousness, therefore, is material, and is not a single entity but a structure of entities all working to keep you, the machine made of machines, going. The idea that you experience this life as one entity is an illusion, used by the structure of your mind and body (which have been tuned by evolution for this purpose) to keep you alive, and to spread the genes.

You can think of yourself as a machine, with many cogs and axis, and many different machine-y things going on. Because you are a machine built to perceive, you perceive life as one entity, however you are in fact still just a machine made of many little cogs and things.

Now, what happens when you die is that the machine breaks down. Ceases to work. Ceases to perceive. A major component flunks it, either because it's too old, or it's experienced trauma, and the machine as a whole can't function. Pop goes the weasel. You kick the bucket. You shuffle loose the mortal coil. See ya never.

 

[Story]

I disagree with the assumption you made of point b) (not point b) itself, although of that I am unsure).

You state that because matter is (let's assume) replaced in the brain, then the "soul" cannot be held within that matter. I say that there is nothing special about any particular atom, and it is the way in which they are arranged that creates a "soul". So the replacement of matter in the brain does not affect the overall structure of it, and it is the structure which dictates our consciousness. Consciousness, therefore, is material, and is not a single entity but a structure of entities all working to keep you, the machine made of machines, going. The idea that you experience this life as one entity is an illusion, used by the structure of your mind and body (which have been tuned by evolution for this purpose) to keep you alive, and to spread the genes.

You can think of yourself as a machine, with many cogs and axis, and many different machine-y things going on. Because you are a machine built to perceive, you perceive life as one entity, however you are in fact still just a machine made of many little cogs and things.

Now, what happens when you die is that the machine breaks down. Ceases to work. Ceases to perceive. A major component flunks it, either because it's too old, or it's experienced trauma, and the machine as a whole can't function. Pop goes the weasel. You kick the bucket. You shuffle loose the mortal coil. See ya never.

I agree with half of what you're saying. You see, consciousness in general is a result of certain configurations of matter (Your brain for example), that is certain, however the fact that it's your "soul" inside that consciousness is not because of either the configuration nor the matter itself. If it has nothing to do with the configuration or the matter, then why is it your "soul" and not someone else's?

Basically why are you, you and not someone else. I tried to demonstrate that it has nothing to do with the sperm or egg, or your DNA. It has nothing to do with the matter itself, but the only thing in question here is if it was the certain configuration of your brain that makes it you? But it isn't that either, likelihood is that your brain isn't configured the same way it was 20 years ago. Furthermore, if the configuration did yield your "soul" and not the matter then duplicating the configuration should yield another "you", but there is no way of knowing that it would and even if the new one was you, you would have no idea. You would not perceive a dual consciousness, you would perceive individual consciousnesses that were completely unaware of the other.

However, there is no reason to believe that this phenomenon would yield only in the case of a duplicate of your configuration, as a matter of fact there's no reason to believe that it is your configuration that makes your "soul" yours.

 

[lrkun]

Do you think this will apply in your OP:

I am me, because I can think, and not because someone is thinking for me.

You are you, because I can't think for you; but you can think for yourself.

Point to clarrify, how did you generalize that our consciousness came about because of matter? (correct my question if it seems vague).

 

[Story]

Do you think this will apply in your OP:

I am me, because I can think, and not because someone is thinking for me.

You are you, because I can't think for you; but you can think for yourself.

Point to clarrify, how did you generalize that our consciousness came about because of matter? (correct my question if it seems vague).

Well it's mostly based on the idea that this universe is based on immutable naturalistic laws (namely physics, chemistry etc). If this is true then our consciousness (being an emergent property of the universe) could only be a result of phenomenon within the universe, the simplest of which is matter.

 

[lrkun]

I think you need to make a situation which shows acts of consciousness and distinguishes it from acts which don't show consciousness. If consciousness means "soul"



The video was suggested by laurens in the chatroom.

 

[Gerst]

You don't HAVE a body, you ARE a body.
We have all been ground and polished by billions of years of evolution to percieve the world from our point of view, and not somebody elses. You are you, because you are you. If somebody else was you, he would be himself. Which is exactly the same thing. The point you were trying to make seems irrelevant to me. Because you are just you, why wouldn't you be?

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

You don't HAVE a body, you ARE a body.
We have all been ground and polished by billions of years of evolution to percieve the world from our point of view, and not somebody elses. You are you, because you are you. If somebody else was you, he would be himself. Which is exactly the same thing. The point you were trying to make seems irrelevant to me. Because you are just you, why wouldn't you be?

 

[Cabbo]

The reason you are you, and not somebody else, is because then you wouldn't be you. You'd be someone else. Who would therefore be you. So you're going to be you no matter what way you look at it.

What makes a person is genealogy and experience. You are you because you were born in a brain, and that brain developed, adapting to outside stimuli (which it registered through sight, sound, taste, touch etc. and stored as memory) to become what you are now (and you are still changing).

Sorry if I'm a little incoherent. Big weekend.

 

[Story]

You don't HAVE a body, you ARE a body.
We have all been ground and polished by billions of years of evolution to percieve the world from our point of view, and not somebody elses. You are you, because you are you. If somebody else was you, he would be himself. Which is exactly the same thing. The point you were trying to make seems irrelevant to me. Because you are just you, why wouldn't you be?

From a peripheral glance it might seem meaningless and irrelevant, but saying you are you because it's you doesn't explain anything. It's just the law of identity. Polar bears are polar bears because they're polar bears. That's true, but it's tautological and tells us nothing about the subject at all. Polar Bears are polar bears because they fit that label that we have applied to them which defines a certain genetic criteria.

I agree we are conscious because of our brains/bodies, my only problem is the idea that you are conscious of your own body because of your brain. This is essentially true, but the brain is not what makes you conscious of your body. If it was... this would just be replacing the concept of the brain with the soul. How you ask? Because you're assuming that there was a point in time where "your" consciousness came into existence (or a gradual process). If this is true then your claim is that certain configurations of matter can itself create a consciousness an independent consciousness like a soul which is born and extinguished. You're also claiming that there was something about your conception that made you conscious of that body. You are saying that if you die it's the end or if you weren't born you would not exist, which explains well the flesh sack that is your body, personality and memories, but not the conscious awareness that is you.

Essentially you could be seeing through the eyes and life of any one in the world today, what makes you you?

 

[Story]

The reason you are you, and not somebody else, is because then you wouldn't be you. You'd be someone else. Who would therefore be you. So you're going to be you no matter what way you look at it.

What makes a person is genealogy and experience. You are you because you were born in a brain, and that brain developed, adapting to outside stimuli (which it registered through sight, sound, taste, touch etc. and stored as memory) to become what you are now (and you are still changing).

Sorry if I'm a little incoherent. Big weekend.

Would you say that if a different sperm collided with a different ovum then you wouldn't exist, not as in you the personality, but you the consciousness?

If so, then what about a different sperm and the same ovum or the same sperm and different ovum? Do these matter at all in making your consciousness?

If not, then it follows that you could have been conscious of anyone, of course you would have been them, but you still could have been anyone.

 

[kenandkids]

I'm not a fan of many revisits on the concept of soul. Too often people are working on their own preconceived or previously taught concept.

Each of us is unique, this is fact. Even identical twins, raised with the same family and pets and car wrecks, are different. This individuality cannot be questioned; too many variables exist in daily life, much less a monthly or yearly scale, to allow too much similarity.

Our brains configure and use such experiences to form the person that we become. The "branching tree" concept comes into play here. Take the twins for an example. Let us pretend that they are truly identical, in thought and form, and witness a person fall, one out of the corner of his eye and the other directly. There is now a branching of experience creating different perceptions that lead to different interpretations. Thus the individuality of people is easily demonstrated.

Too often the argument is that it isn't possible to have so many random variations; that some grand something must be somewhere doing some action or placing some object within us that controls some aspect of something else. Another common (in America at least) is that we cannot explain our affinity for music so there must be a soul that is designed to respond to this particular stimulus (also art, math, etc.). Bullshit.

Why say this in regards to a soul? Because these learned behaviours and differing perceptions create routes in the brain. These electrical routes determine the memory and type of memory. Without memory we are as nothing in a personal context. If a soul exists outside of these memories and connections, why would Alzheimers be possible? How could brain damage cause a lack of memory of self or change a person?

I remember years ago reading a study on a man in New York that was in a terrible accident. He was the most disgusting, foul, "evil" person you could imagine. I put that in quotation marks because evil is an entirely different subject. During this accident he suffered, rather severe, damage to his brain. When consciousness resumed he was an entirely different person. He lived the rest of his life as a caring, loving person who would be missed, prior to the accident no person would have missed him and most would have been relieved that knew him. To believe in the soul a person must ask themselves whether or not the soul was the person before or the person after the accident. Either his soul was a terrible vile thing or it was a caring and beautiful thing.

The simple and seemingly obvious fact is that our brain and it's "wiring" are the sole determinative concept in regards to self. This is it. There is no programming code (soul) that can override the loss of integral parts or reroute our personality around missing units. In a computer, you can take out ram chips and processors and simply reload the [previous "thing/personality/programming" of a computer. Humans are not like this. If you remove or damage the pieces that contain our memory, you remove us.