What do you think happens after you die? Recently I had an extremely

>>18436009
The same state you were in before you were born...'nothing'.

>>18436009
Nothing. Nothing happens. Anyone who tells you otherwise is delusional.

>>18436031
>>18436032
You have both made the extraordinary claim that there is no afterlife.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but consulting history, it would seem that this is not the consensus opinion. Thus the burden of proof falls on you, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

>>18436050
Consulting history, people claim there IS. The burden is on them. I am merely stating my opinion based on facts of biology concerning no activity of dead brains.

>>18436054
I agree that anyone making a claim that there is an afterlife should provide proof, just as anyone making a claim there isn't one should provide proof. Unfortunately for this conversation none of us know until were dead, so it's literally the oldest and tiredest debate that any atheist, theist, deist, or agnostic can ever have.

Maybe we can all focus on making life good for one another before we find out by not rehashing this shit argument 10 million times before it happens.

>>18436054
You're assuming that consciousness comes from the brain. The brain could possibly just be revieving and transmitting consciousness from some other source like a radio. Just a theory.
Consciousness is a mystery, and i don't think that we can be 100% sure that there is no consciousness without a brain

I firmly believe that state you are in after you die is same as before you were born. Brain function is non-existant in both cases, and they should have same result.

>>18436072
in the interest of fairness and playing devils advocate, since I was just the one arguing with him, by all our current measurable standards "consciousness" occurs with electrical stimulus in the brain, when we die, that ceases. We can measure brain activity through measuring electrical signals in the brain, if all electricity stops, and all measurable thought stops, it is a fair justification to believe that there is nothing after that fact.

The challenge for those among us who are spiritual and have even a moderate respect for the sciences is to understand what we are besides electro-chemical impulses, because as for demonstrable evidence, it appears as if it is nothing. Any other belief has to rely on conjecture about the nature of consciousness or soul.

>>18436073
can you name anything else in existence which is in the same state at the beginning and end of its existence? Something that had no origins, and no trace of its existence, then came into existence, then failed to exist without trace of its passage?

>>18436084

The operating system of a computer. At one point in time it does not yet exist, then it is created and runs its course while the computer is actively functioning, and then ceases to exist as anything other than a memory when the computer is destroyed.

>>18436122
While I can agree with the premise, I dont think this is true, it would only be true in a vacuum where the information is never shared with any other system or device. It's entirely possible for that operating system to be effectively immortal with proper maintenance. We could talk about the ship of Theseus here too and try to determine what constituted an original consciousness.

I suppose I should amend my previous statement and say: "something that does not exist, and has no trace of existence, then comes into existence, and ceases to exist without evidence of its passage, and does this invariably, by its nature"

Although if anything, your idea is further evidence that we live in a simulated reality, which is interesting enough to the topic at hand.

>>18436032
prove it

>>18436136


>It's entirely possible for that operating system to be effectively immortal with proper maintenance.

Sure. And it's entirely possible for a conscious entity to remain conscious with proper maintenance. We can't do that with biological entities right now, but maybe in time. This doesn't change anything though, and the eventual heat death of the universe will bring an end to even the most resilient of entities.


>"something that does not exist, and has no trace of existence, then comes into existence, and ceases to exist without evidence of its passage, and does this invariably, by its nature"

Literally any organised system given enough time that entropy can reach its maximum level.

>>18436009
If I die by electrocution does my mind travel through the power lines?

>>18436009
You change drastically.
People say nothing. But lots goes on. You mesh back into the Universe in spirit. Your body returns to the Earth an empty vessel. Then your mind hops over to the timeline where you are still alive.

File: tom-hanks-explosion.gif (842KB, 228x171px) Image search: [Google]

842KB, 228x171px

>>18436050
>and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

WHOA DUDE SO LIKE, AFTER YOU DIE YOU BECOME A GHOST AND SHIT TO WANDER THE EARTH, OR YOU GO TO A MAGICAL LAND WHERE EVERYTHING IS GREAT, OR YOU COME BACK AS AN ANIMAL

Vs.

Nothing happens, you just don't exist anymore.

The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person to prove there is SOMETHING rather than the opposing idea there is NOTHING.

See there is no proof of the afterlife, nothing. Ghost footage is easily doctored or explained, experiences people have had where they 'died during surgery before being revived eventually' are horseshit because true death is when the brain dies, not when your heart stops.

The human imagination / intelligence is our ultimate foe when it comes to believing in an afterlife because it's difficult for us to fathom nothingness even though we experience it every time we sleep and aren't dreaming.

I'd love for there to be more after death, but it's easier to look at things from a biological and instinctual perspective as animals do.

>>18436009
>What do you think happens after you die?
Personally I don't care much.
If it all fades away, I'll suffer no more in this life.
If I get reborn I get a clean start. (and hopefully don't get screwed by karma)
"Heaven" = good.
"purgatory" = Better.
"hell" = I'd get over it.

>>18436050
>You have both made the extraordinary claim that there is no afterlife.
The concept of an afterlife had to be created and made presentable before it could possibly be opposed. You know your attempt to shift the burden is misplaced.

To everyone asking for proof here's your proof. The world's top neurologist did a study on a number of people who were dead as in no electrical activity in the brain for many minutes and recorded their various responses.

Many of them remembered conversations from when they were dead, many could identify equipment that was used on them while they were dead. All of them encountered some kind of perfect being.

I don't know if that does you any good, but there's something out there.

https://www.wired.com/2013/04/consciousness-after-death/

P.s. the article is on wired not some crackpot website. Deal with it nerds.