The idea that some form of consciousness continues after death is a controversial one and difficult to prove, especially when modern science still struggles to define exactly what consciousness is. To study this, researchers turned to the main evidence of an afterlife which is thousands of reports by people who say they physically died but their consciousness continued before they were brought back to life. When confronted with the notion that life continues after death, skeptics love to point to a host of common explanations such as "chemicals in the brain" are causing the experiences people report. But if you look at the peer-reviewed studies and scientific papers, many of these so-called explanations have actually been proven wrong.
The Scientific Evidence Of Life After Death
Proved what wrong, exactly? Hallucinations are in a very colloquial sense "chemicals in the brain". The issue with life after death is that there isn't any evidence for the places the people meet.
"chemicals in the brain" don't mean jack shit since these experiences happen when the brain is completely dead.
When the brain has no activity there can't be any hallucinations. If the brain is completely dead and a person comes back from that they would be mentally retarded, in a vegetated state.
A person's brain is considered dead when there are no significant electrical signal (brain waves) being detected but even then there are chemical reactions occurring in the brain for a limited amount of time before neuron failure sets in. It's just like how wood still absorbs moisture even after it's "dead" due to the function of the cells being a result of chemical processes that function without direct regulation from RNA.
When the people who experience visions have their heart stop or their neural activity brought to near undetectable levels their minds are in a state where many functions of the brain aren't working properly, including the frontal lobe; in other words their brains ability to make sense of stimuli is gone. Once the person is resuscitated their mind attempts to make sense of what happened and process all the data it couldn't process before, that's when the rationalizations happen.
In order to test if there is consouisness after death there must be someway to end someones life and then establish contact with whatever remains afterwords; to talk to their spirit. But as of today their hasn't been a single verifiable example of speaking with the dead, just conman BS that doesn't hold up to proper examination.
this is Zig Forums what were you expecting?
Even if trees used RNA this example would be horseshit. I'm sure it would get a lot of upvotes on Reddit though, it certainly sounds like it was well thought out.
The Goldwater is actual fake news. This is new aged faggot shit
Calling people Reddit does not count as a counterargument.
If you have seen a chicken with it's head cut off or a squid cut into a dozen pieces and consumed while still twitching you might think their is life after death.
But really, that's just a delusion for your shitty life having some meaning.
I'm not the person you were replying to. I posted for no reason other than to tell you to go back; while you're there learn middle school biology.
What is consciousness when asleep?
What is consciousness without memory?
What is consciousness without a working brain?
I believe consciousness is the brain simply functioning, utilizing all of its parts including vision.
You will never be able to download it, save it, store it like you might with memories. The other parts of the brain working with those memories to reflect up and emotionally sync with is consciousness.
Are you just your memories?
Are you anything at all?
Rambling about chemicals to rationalize away consciousness happens in a state when many functions of the brain aren't working properly, in other words the brain's ability to make sense of the world is gone.
This state is called dogmatic materialism, and is strongly correlated to antisocial personality disorders, identity disorders and delusions of omniscience.
Also, consciousness is a first person only phenomenon and as such for external observer it can only exist as a projection.
No matter what, the research is valuable, if not worthwhile, even if we at first still know nothing, which at this point, is obviously not the case. No research yields true insight at its beginning, only what didn't yield results and what else to try instead. We know that even after the brain no longer transmits signals, patients are able to fully recollect whatever they perceived had happend to them "post mortem" and that many of these experiences are consistent with each other. That should be enough to get peoples attention, instead of dismissing it as lacking too great in tangible evidence, which it isn't. It obviously isn't. Something is happening, and saying that it's simply chemicals in the brain or post memory recall as a result of a traumatic experience isn't good enough an answer when the implications of an imminent discovery offer a greater possible reward than embracing what the easier answer is. A theory then. Here's mine, I'd like to see what can be added or taken away from it:
We know the body and we know the mind. Two intrinsic manifestations of being that we can readily observe, study and learn more about, but I propose a third category. The Spirit. Now can we observe the spiritual? No, but many claim to have witnessed it. Perhaps not empirically, but when there are piles of anecdotal evidence spanning centuries of surreal and supposed accounts of the apparently impossible, then it would be foolish to dismiss it. Proof? No. Evidence? Yes. Worth giving attention? Absolutely. We know that the person itself has a completely vivid and lucid experience following death despite a lack of brain function, some experiences being claimed to feel more "real" than reality itself. With more conventional explainations aside, would one consider that the brain in all of its complexity isn't merely a complex computational machine allowing the person to perceive reality, but rather a "receiver" of sorts which sorts out the "signals" of something which is at first unseen? And if a radio receiver is damaged or destroyed, do the signals it once received cease to exist? Of course not. Would one consider that it is not the brain that merely perceives reality, but that the brain is actually a medium which instead *receives* reality?
Why then are the religious, the spiritual, and open hearted suppoedly experiencing the profound, but the researchers that bother to investigate these experiences are not? Perhaps it's much more complicated than a group claiming to experience something, and another group taking a deeper look and not observing anything. If you have, let's say, 1 million people witnessing or experiencing a supernatural instance, would it be honest to say that those 1 million people are either liars, embellishers, and/or mistaken? Convenient maybe, but perhaps it's not a matter of observation, but a matter of giving yourself over to its possibilities. It could be the case that the properties of the spirit are instead enigmatic instead of constant. Intelligence rather than static. Evading observance, yet manifested only under the proper conditions. It's interesting how a religion can be started because of a miracle or a string of miracles, then cease as soon as its adherents begin to pay too much attention to the phenomonas, dogmatizing it and putting it in a box; trying to figure it out. At that point, it seems to evade those who attempt to pursue it just like researchers. All the while under certain circumstances of perspective, some who consider themselves to be spiritual who loosely give themselves over to it, believing it without knowing it, seeking it without finding its source, origin or properties, putting full "faith" instead of full certainty into their desires, making them manifest. Who then is to say that the properties of the spiritual couldn't be likened to a particle that changes its properties once it's observed? Yet less containable, unable to be mastered in the physical, because whatever it is, it is its own master and reveals itself thusly.
Still today, the people of the spiritual world claim to see miracles, healings, sightings and manifestations of the impossible; puzzled doctors, turncoat skeptics, profound experiences that leave a person with either no explanation, or a perceived all-explanation.
The scientific community is at a loss for many unsolved mysteries of the human puzzle, junk DNA, human origin, and the probable miracle that is our own sentient existence, could opening our minds to that which we never considered lead us to a more concrete solution one day? And with this, it's okay not to know. To claim to know would be arrogant. Whether to say that you know that it *isn't* or it *is*. But to be able to admit to not know could be invaluable, critical, to opening ourselves to further understanding to what can be revealed.
Dude, it's the pisswater. This is pure, 100%, clickbait. The title is written to grab attention and well done to whichever flip ladyboy wrote it they did a decent job.
A woman was able to accurately count the number of fingers behind her nurses back in an out of body experiebce after she was declared dead upon returning to life.
Nigger thats when you done fucked up.
The brain is material and anything material can be duplicated eventually. The human consciousness will run day be able to run on some external hardware, it simply stands to reason that this can happen. When? Fuck nose, probably a long time to go yet.
You don't understand what he is saying and yet you are responding to it. Rest assured that no one will ever intentionally duplicate your consciousness.
If the brain is completely dead then there is no coming back to tell about it, we're talking about 5 minutes of cardiac arrest and diminished activity on an EEG
Trees, like all other known life forms, including humans, do use RNA, you stupid sack of shit. Using RNA does not mean they don't use DNA also, which is probably where you got confused. They're not mutually exclusive. I don't even know why you would think that. It's okay to have no idea about anything, but please just stfu if so.
< More secular countries have lower rates of both and higher standard of living.
But you cling on to the fedora meme as tightly as you cling on to a little wooden cross. Both are as about as effective at preventing reality getting in your face.
Are you retarded?