What happens after you die and should I be scared about it?

[belligerent drunk]

May I ask what field of science you're in, Bagseed? (just curious)

It's a good point that humans tend to look for things beyond reason. But at least me personally, I stopped doing that some time ago. Maybe because I'm just too numb and indifferent towards life in general, but things like "but what if, [...] it's like that!" and so on don't phase me anymore. Yeah, it's entertaining to think the universe is an entity that has some kind of awareness and we're part of that and so on and so on, but when you think about it, it's just so far-fetched and is not based on any observable fact. I mean it's just as good as suggesting that our whole universe is within an elementary particle of some other universe or whatever. They're interesting ideas, but that's all they are... products of a curious imagination.

This is not to say that I'm attacking your or anyone's belief, I'm just explaining why it smells like bullshit to me.

 

[Bagseed]

I'm just a bachelor's student in chemistry at the moment. not really a scientist yet

 

[sigmond]

I thought death = dead

Death: is the termination of all biological functions that sustain a living organism.

Dying: gradually ceasing to exist or function; in decline and about to disappear.

as soon as youse born youse dying..

 

[belligerent drunk]

I'm just a bachelor's student in chemistry at the moment. not really a scientist yet

Chemistry! I'm also formally a chemist, but on a level of a hobbyist I'm interested in biology (more specifically the chemistry aspect of it, biochemistry - not surprising, and fundamental physics).

I thought death = dead

Death: is the termination of all biological functions that sustain a living organism.

Dying: gradually ceasing to exist or function; in decline and about to disappear.

as soon as youse born youse dying..

I understand what you're saying but it's either an over-simplification or just plain incorrect terminology. What you're describing as dying is aging, but not dying. I would say that dying is an irreversible cascade of events/reactions that ultimately lead to the cessation of brain function, which can happen within seconds (capping oneself) or days, months.

I have to say that it is difficult to refute the original argument (the one you posted), but upon close inspection you can see that some of the premises are not entirely valid. The easiest way I can put it is presenting a following argument:

-all organisms are collections of molecules, adducts, complexes, atoms and ions.
-said particles have no consciousness, they're just matter that reacts to its electromagnetic surrounding (in simplifying terms)
-therefore no process that happens to any organism carries any absolute significance, because it's nothing but particles interacting with eachother according to certain set of laws of physics

You cannot refute that argument, because there is no evidence to suggest the contrary. But does this kind of reasoning make sense if we're talking about SUBJECTIVE human experience? It is not invalid or incorrect (at least to our knowledge), but it is obsolete, I would even say, in the context of humans. After all we're organisms with brains that function on subjective and biased thinking processes, so presenting arguments like that is just... pointless?

It is true that death is nothing but a process like any other, so it carries no absolute significance, but that doesn't stop us from considering the ramifications of it. That is what I'm trying to stress.

 

[Kittycat5]

The state of death is something no living being can be in, so therefore death, in these terms cannot affect the living. Dying is something that all living organism will experience, so the process leading to death is what to fear, not the state of being dead.

I would argue being dead is something to fear, however.

 

[belligerent drunk]

The state of death is something no living being can be in, so therefore death, in these terms cannot affect the living. Dying is something that all living organism will experience, so the process leading to death is what to fear, not the state of being dead.

I would argue being dead is something to fear, however.

Could you elaborate on that?

 

[turkalurk]

what a weak ass argument. death does affect the living in a variety of ways. The death of a father, for instance, would have a significant impact on his living family. Unless he is a selfish egoic asshole, he is justified in having anxiety about his death and the impact it will have on his family. its a silly weak argument and I am suprised anyone would take it seriously. If death isn't harmful why try to avoid it? If we didn't tey to avoid it we'd fail as a species. How wpuld that not be harmful?

 

[Kittycat5]

Trying to avoid death is of course one of the basic instincts of everything living, but when someone ceases to be alive, the individual is not affected by death, as nothing living can also be dead (maybe a cat in a box could ). If I take that line of reasoning to be correct, we are examing just a singular beings state, not the events before it and how one can prolong life.

I agree that ones death can be painful to those around them, so we can and do worry about others death and what has become of them. But one cannot examine ones own death, as they are no longer aware that they were once living.

My arguement will stem from this, but I have to go back to work.

 

[One Thousand Words]

Give me five days and I guarantee I can tell you if that cat in the box is dead or not. Three tops in summer

 

[turkalurk]

The state of death is something no living being can be in, so therefore death, in these terms cannot affect the living. Dying is something that all living organism will experience, so the process leading to death is what to fear, not the state of being dead.

I would argue being dead is something to fear, however.

Like I said, it all depends on how selfish you are. In my example, a father that cares more about his family then he does his own life would not give a shit about dying, compared to fearing what would become of his family with his absence. its the absence of life and fear of the unknown that scares people. it all depends on context. If you value your life and the people that depend on you, then you will worry about your death. If you are dis-satisfied with life and would value and end to your suffering, you might even be hopeful about death.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Give me five days and I guarantee I can tell you if that cat in the box is dead or not. Three tops in summer

Lol! Or if you're feelin gansta

I'll stuff you in a box like Schrödinger's cat,
you'll be dead and alive until such a time as that,
I check and make the wave function collapse,
and if you ain't dead I'll cap your ass.
-- Mc Hawking

Yeah, reincarnation. Can't prove it but works for me.

 

[swilow]

what a weak ass argument. death does affect the living in a variety of ways. The death of a father, for instance, would have a significant impact on his living family. Unless he is a selfish egoic asshole, he is justified in having anxiety about his death and the impact it will have on his family. its a silly weak argument and I am suprised anyone would take it seriously. If death isn't harmful why try to avoid it? If we didn't tey to avoid it we'd fail as a species. How wpuld that not be harmful?

Its hard to know who you talking to because you've just jumped in with no real indication. I assume (god help me) you are talking about Sigmond's quotation from Epicurus?

Epicurus is not talking about the effects of another's death on you. He is referring to one's own mortality and how fearing the actuality of being dead is pointless. If there is no experiencer, there is no experience- no point in anticpating fearfully a state you won't actually experience. The death of other significant people will obviously have a negative impact, but I still see no reason to go around being afraid of that.

I think you've extended the argument to an extreme that is of your own devising. Its really difficult to talk about death as harmful. Generally, harmful things are what initiate death. Death itself is the natural conclusion to the life of everything ever. Epicurus isn't advocating a carefree/careless attitude towards death- he is talking about not wasting your life being afraid of it. I personally can see no benefit in being afraid of an inevitability, though I still do feel apprehensive. So, he is not saying that we should stop avoiding death, but that we should stop living our lives in the shadow of death and allowing such fear and apprehension to dominate our lives.

I found that argument logically compelling but it hasn't really assisted me in my contemplation of death. Its one thing to tell yourself not to be afraid, completely different to try and defy most of our biological systems and actually feel unafraid. But, I think there is value in the argument...

 

[turkalurk]

Its hard to know who you talking to because you've just jumped in with no real indication. I assume (god help me) you are talking about Sigmond's quotation from Epicurus?

Epicurus is not talking about the effects of another's death on you. He is referring to one's own mortality and how fearing the actuality of being dead is pointless. If there is no experiencer, there is no experience- no point in anticpating fearfully a state you won't actually experience. The death of other significant people will obviously have a negative impact, but I still see no reason to go around being afraid of that.

I think you've extended the argument to an extreme that is of your own devising. Its really difficult to talk about death as harmful. Generally, harmful things are what initiate death. Death itself is the natural conclusion to the life of everything ever. Epicurus isn't advocating a carefree/careless attitude towards death- he is talking about not wasting your life being afraid of it. I personally can see no benefit in being afraid of an inevitability, though I still do feel apprehensive. So, he is not saying that we should stop avoiding death, but that we should stop living our lives in the shadow of death and allowing such fear and apprehension to dominate our lives.

I found that argument logically compelling but it hasn't really assisted me in my contemplation of death. Its one thing to tell yourself not to be afraid, completely different to try and defy most of our biological systems and actually feel unafraid. But, I think there is value in the argument...

yes, I am talking about epicurus.
there is only value in his argument if we can accept the premises to be true. Maybe you can, but if you have been reading about my beliefs of what a soul is then it should be obvious why it is so very very weak to me. What point is an argument built on such narrow minded principles that most people wouldn't accept. Whoever can believe "death is nothing to us" is easily deluded. Its not what I will be going through after I die that concerns me about death, its what I will be leaving behind and not being their for the ones I love.

 

[Kittycat5]

Turk, you stole my thunder. I was going to mention how dying affects more than the individual, albeit was a minor point.

But really my main problem is with death equals annihilation. We have no idea if that is even true, cant prove it and the majority of the world does not believe death destroys your soul or essence or consciousness, thus destroying the rest of the axioms.

 

[sigmond]

you can believe in a soul but of course you cannot prove its existence - youse cant posit da soul! (mouse issues)

u willow.

1/4 Nix

 

[belligerent drunk]

Kitty, I'm interested in hearing what your take on the death-afterlife thing is (sorry if I missed it, but couldn't find in this thread).

 

[swilow]

What point is an argument built on such narrow minded principles that most people wouldn't accept.

Turk, you stole my thunder. I was going to mention how dying affects more than the individual, albeit was a minor point.

But really my main problem is with death equals annihilation. We have no idea if that is even true, cant prove it and the majority of the world does not believe death destroys your soul or essence or consciousness, thus destroying the rest of the axioms.

I don't see how the views of a majority have anything to do with the value of an idea. Sure, a majority may believe in afterlife but a majority can be wrong. And has before on this round earth. That's really one of the points of these philosophies, to examine things that we hold as being axiomatically true and wonder whether they actually are.

We have a way of defining death by the cessation of physical processes in the body and subsequent breakdown of the body. The physical structures of body/brain are no longer of use. Anything encoded in that structure is what dies. Everything you learned and remembered. Death may not be total annhilation, but I think it is annhilation of the self at least.

 

[turkalurk]

you can believe in a soul but of course you cannot prove its existence - youse cant posit da soul! (mouse issues)

u willow.

1/4 Nix

I can prove my version of a soul exists as much as anything else could be "proven". I believe a spirit to be the sum causal effect of one's actions on the world and those they interact with. Like with my example, the children left behind will be carrying on his legacy. His children will be carrying on with his spirit. their actions become a continuation of his spirit(causal effect on the world). Pretty simple stuff really.

 

[turkalurk]

I don't see how the views of a majority have anything to do with the value of an idea. Sure, a majority may believe in afterlife but a majority can be wrong. And has before on this round earth. That's really one of the points of these philosophies, to examine things that we hold as being axiomatically true and wonder whether they actually are.

We have a way of defining death by the cessation of physical processes in the body and subsequent breakdown of the body. The physical structures of body/brain are no longer of use. Anything encoded in that structure is what dies. Everything you learned and remembered. Death may not be total annhilation, but I think it is annhilation of the self at least.

its because you identify with your ego. Study inductive reasoning and you will see the strengh of your argument depends on the general acceptance of the premises. If your argument is strong, then your premises should be easily accepted by the majority. In other words, a strong inductive argument will be grounded on premises that can easily be generally accepted as being true. All you need to do to show the weakness in their argument is to show one exception to their premises, which I have provided.
You seem to place more value on something said by someone famous.

Its not like his argument brought anything new to the table of this discussion. I made a similar point with that buddhist story that focused more specifically on not letting a potential suffering that may not come to be, to allow you to suffer unnecessary in this life. But, without trying to prove you ought not to worry about your death and that death is "nothing to the living." Death is significant to those who love Life.

In the context of my version of a soul, allowing a fear of death to prevent you from saving your child from drowning could significantly impact your "soul". If you are egotistical, it may not make much of a difference because you are only concerned with your subjective experience so it doesn't matter to you what happens to the world when you die. The world may as well not exist if they can't experience it anymore. So, to them, there is nothing to leave behind. Those selfcentered people will find Epicurus's argument conpelling. Those who care about the people and the world that will still be there when they are gone, will find his argument silly and egoic.

 

[Foreigner]

Everyone identifies with ego. It's unavoidable as long as you are navigating the physical world. That doesn't mean you can't see beyond it. You are ego talking. Using words, semantics and ideas which attempt to separate, is ego. Anytime you engage in "I am this and that is that", it's ego. Subject-object consciousness is ego. Any thought that attempts to affirm that you're a you and that you're separate, individual, and have unique conditions, ego is at work.

There's no "you" in here, nothing is running this show. Nobody is in control. That's what is so farcical about the discussion of death. Nothing is dying. All you have to do to understand this is inquire into the total inconsistency of mind and consciousness, how it's there one minute and gone the next, how it's changeable. Everything arises and dissolves without input from a "you". One moment that "you" is not there and has nothing to say about it, and then the next it's back again and spinning a story to take credit for something that's arising. Whether you subscribe to the notion of your input or not is irrelevant, it all goes on and on despite you. I'm not describing victimhood here, it's actually quite liberating, but it also means there's no point in grasping onto anything because you can't.

I actually think reincarnation sounds like a form of torture...

Could be. Enter Buddhism that wants to get off this gravy train. Others seem to have this notion that if there is a soul, it's on a progressive learning path and uses the cycle of life/death to acquire more growth. If that's true then being born human must be pretty low on the totem pole.