26 replies to this topic

[Wandering Jew]

Is there no possibility for counsciouness to go on after death? No chance at all for self-awareness to survive death? I wonder if there's an airtight 100% proof that not even a tiny little bit of counsciousness can survive, 0% chance and how should someone show that?

[JohnDoe1234]

As with many other discussions regarding consciousness, the absolute first thing you MUST do before you even begin to speculate is to define exactly what consciousness is.

You mentioned self-awareness, so I am assuming your definition is somewhat analogous to it? If so, an interesting thought experiment which my answer is based on is how to construct the least complex self-aware system possible.

By a technical definition, a thermostat is conscious to an extent, (and this is where the definition is important), in my view, consciousness is nothing magical, supernatural, or paranormal, it is a basic property of matter just as movement or the tendency for low energy water molecules to arrange themselves into lattices. Consciousness should be measured in degrees, depending on the amount of information entropy in the system.

So, any system which has the ability to change an internal state depending on another separate internal state is self-aware. No dispute can be made against that point, so consciousness most probably arises all over the entire universe much like the small whisper of background radiation we can observe.

Picture looking through an infra-red lens, how most of the background is a dark blue (but not completely black), and small regions are red\orange\yellow, and in some concentrated regions white. This is how consciousness should be quantified. Degrees of self-awareness or complexity.

So, once again, going by a technical definition, you could speak of some sort of universal consciousness (but it is nothing useful) and some regions of that 'universal consciousness' are informationally isolated from others and yield no significant results of being 'conscious'.

It is important to note that just because something is conscious, that does NOT necessarily imply that it is capable of intelligent thought, memory, or external perception.

Consciousness should be considered more of an intrinsic property of matter, which requires a non-zero information entropy.

So my answer is yes. It does continue, but not in the same form, quantity, and most certainly not with the same functionality. You will not have memories persisting after death (unless the exact structure of your physical brain is preserved).

I am also curious, what is your definition for consciousness?

[Prometheus]

Barring an act of God, absolutely zero.

[Wandering Jew]

Barring an act of God, absolutely zero.

but why? If there's God, there'll be, if not, seems extremely unlikely ~ nothingness, oblivion. answer to joseph: I mean personality , memory, self-awareness, continuation.

again, asking for airtight 100% logical proof beyond a tiny thread of reasonable doubt

[JohnDoe1234]

If you saw a derelict truck from the 1930's rusting out in a field, would you ask: Is there any way I can drive this once it rusts into the ground?

It is unreasonable to even ask the question.

Personality and memories will be lost forever. Self-awareness will decay into a near-zero state equivalent to that of the nearby dirt. You have to treat self-awareness differently than personality and memories.

[JohnDoe1234]

Here would be my best attempt at a logical proof-by-analogy that thoughts, memories, and personality do not persist after death:

Some pseudo-axioms to start with:

A. Any structure of atoms is subject to the same laws of physics as another structure as long as they are located in the same universe

B. Any complex structure designed for a purpose might not function if a certain number of its constituent atoms are not in their designated locations


The case of a 1930's Chevrolet pickup truck:

1. A 1930's Chevrolet pickup truck is a structure of atoms
2. A 1930's Chevrolet pickup truck is a complex structure
3. A 1930's Chevrolet pickup truck is composed of matter
4. The 1930's Chevrolet pickup truck can only function if a certain number of its constituent atoms are in their designated locations
5. Otherwise combustion and 'driveability' will not occur
6. After the 1930's Chevrolet pickup truck rusts into the ground, it will loose its intended functionality
7. The 1930's Chevrolet pickup truck's driveability does not persist after it has rusted into the ground

The case of a human brain:

1. A human brain is a structure of atoms
2. A human brain is a complex structure
3. A human brain is composed of matter
4. The human brain can only function if a certain number of its constituent atoms are in their designated locations
5. Otherwise thought and 'consciousness' will not occur
6. After the human brain decays into the ground, it will loose its intended functionality
7. The human brain's memories and personality do not persist after it has decayed into the ground

In both cases, each structure is complex and subject to the same laws of physics. In addition they cannot function when they are no longer of their designated structure.

So, memories and personality do not persist after death much as the driveability of the pickup truck does not persist after it has rusted into the ground.

Wandering Jew, is the above kinda what you were looking for?

Edited by Joseph, 10 January 2009 - 10:18 AM.
Typos

[vyntager]

Is there no possibility for counsciouness to go on after death? No chance at all for self-awareness to survive death? I wonder if there's an airtight 100% proof that not even a tiny little bit of counsciousness can survive, 0% chance and how should someone show that?

Why are you asking that question ?

The strict answer is, yes there are such possibilities, and they do not even require any supernatural explanation.

Now if your implied question is something along the lines of "Shouldn't we have hope in our continued survival ?" and "But there's still a chance right ?", then the answer is no.

You don't take chances with life. Though if you really want to, play russian roulette, and see how long you can waddle your way innocently through it while singing "it's not for sure so it won't happen" before your head gets blown.

Same thing for life really, even if you're careful it's already so incredibly easy to die, so no need to be carefree and wishfully think that you'll be all right. We're walking in a minefield there, blinding yourself may make the stuff appear less scary, if such is your thing, but it won't really help in any other practical way.

Well thanks for your attention.

Edited by vyntager, 12 January 2009 - 07:27 PM.

[fatboy]

Is there no possibility for counsciouness to go on after death?

Of course there is. All that is required is the disembodiment of consciousness. And I think some enlightened individuals have already paved this path.

[JohnDoe1234]

Is there no possibility for counsciouness to go on after death?

Of course there is. All that is required is the disembodiment of consciousness. And I think some enlightened individuals have already paved this path.

I am curious. How?

I see no scientific backing for this.

[fatboy]

Is there no possibility for counsciouness to go on after death?

Of course there is. All that is required is the disembodiment of consciousness. And I think some enlightened individuals have already paved this path.

I am curious. How?

I see no scientific backing for this.

No empirical evidence. Only "brain in a vat" thought experiments. And, of course, most religions (which collectively, amount to much less than the "brain in a vat" gedankens).

I personally can see this happening. But only because I think that I am not what I think I am (I am, undoubtedly much, much more). That which is able to become disembodied is nothing I am familiar with. But this path leads to spirituality, and I am not at all sure that is my path.

Edited by fatboy, 16 January 2009 - 08:12 AM.

[JohnDoe1234]

Ok, but before you start giving out definitive answers like you did, I think terms like 'disembodiment' need to be defined in a scientific manner.

Because... a statement with no empirical evidence is as valuable as... well, nothing. You might as well have never even said it.

[Connor MacLeod]

Ok, but before you start giving out definitive answers like you did, I think terms like 'disembodiment' need to be defined in a scientific manner.

Because... a statement with no empirical evidence is as valuable as... well, nothing. You might as well have never even said it.

Since your going to be a stickler for definitions I'd like one for "information entropy" as used in the context of one of your previous posts on this thread. I have a feel for what fatboy means when he writes "enlightened" or "disembodied" but your usage of "information entropy" transmits 0 bits.

[StrangeAeons]

IMHO:
Science is biased; it sees the brain as the sole correlate of consciousness. Obviously once information-theoretic death occurs there is no correlate left, and therefore nothing currently observable in the physical domain to attest to the persistence of consciousness.

Firstly, there may be other physical correlates of consciousness we have yet to detect; some alternate energy science is not yet capable of observing-- psionic energy if you will. I consider this theory far-flung, but not impossible. I would prefer to concede that we know very little yet of the Universe and Nature.

Secondly, and more importantly, I believe the brain is the correlate of the foreground of consciousness; but we do not know the rules which consciousness adheres to. We only seem to know that, so long as there is neuronal activity of a certain nature and quantity (and evidently in a specific biological substrate), there appears to be consciousness. There may be other layers to consciousness, perhaps containing the same experiential essence, which take a backseat to perception whilst neuronal activity dominates its nature. This essence may hypothetically be such that there is a perceived continuity between it and neuronal activity even in the absence of classic identity i.e. memory. Therefore even with the eradication of this correlate, the body, i.e. information theoretic death, it is conceivable that other layers come to foreground and are continuous with the experience of consciousness, even though memory might not be intact.
Even a person with amnesia will still see the world through the same eyes, the same body; their brain maintains certain preferential pathways, their body certain metabolic quirks. Consciousness may be the same way; there is an impression left upon it that persists, even in the absence of the most obvious markers of identity.

[JohnDoe1234]

Since your going to be a stickler for definitions I'd like one for "information entropy" as used in the context of one of your previous posts on this thread. I have a feel for what fatboy means when he writes "enlightened" or "disembodied" but your usage of "information entropy" transmits 0 bits.

Sure, sorry about the confusion, all I mean is that the information which describes the system we are talking about has a non-zero length, in other words, there is some form of symbolic (and possibly abstract) substrate for consciousness to take place on.

I have an idea of what disembodied means as well, but in the context of discussing consciousness it is unclear. Because, how do you disembody consciousness? It is sort of like saying that I am going to disembody the information on my computer's hard drive, or I am going to disembody what is currently happening in my computer's processor...

How is this accomplished? And after the disembodiment, where does the consciousness reside?

Science is biased; it sees the brain as the sole correlate of consciousness. Obviously once information-theoretic death occurs there is no correlate left, and therefore nothing currently observable in the physical domain to attest to the persistence of consciousness.

Firstly, there may be other physical correlates of consciousness we have yet to detect; some alternate energy science is not yet capable of observing-- psionic energy if you will. I consider this theory far-flung, but not impossible....

It is certainly possible that something like what you speak of has yet to be discovered, and like you I regard this as highly unlikely.

I would agree about the bias. It is precisely this bias which holds science together. This sort of justified bias keeps people from straying too far from reality (however it does sometimes need to be put aside to make a breakthrough).

When a person experiences an altered state of mind (perhaps a high or a buzz), we can definitively show that it is a consequence of some chemical inhibition or imbalance in the brain. When the giant sticky clump of neurons in a person's skull ceases electrochemical activity, they can no longer support consciousness.

I simply don't see why people need to place consciousness on such a high pedestal since with the technology we posses now we can clearly observe its intimate relationship with the rest of the physical world. Why shouldn't we regard it as just a consequence of material interactions?

[Heliotrope]

Why shouldn't we regard it as just a consequence of material interactions?

Maybe many religious people believe there is a soul, a holy human spirit that just disembodies and rise to Heaven or sink to Hell?

I'd like to believe consciousness is a consequence of brain cells and chemical rxns, many holier-than-thou pious folks believe God breathed in us something. I'm not exactly sure what that something is or if it has material basis. They think that "something" will leave when you die and continue to exist and allow you to continue to think and be aware, laughing down on us.

[StrangeAeons]

I simply don't see why people need to place consciousness on such a high pedestal since with the technology we posses now we can clearly observe its intimate relationship with the rest of the physical world. Why shouldn't we regard it as just a consequence of material interactions?

This is obvious. To look at it scientifically, I see only correlation, not causality. Until we can truly use deterministic molecular modeling of the brain so that we can predict a given response in consciousness to a given physical stimulus to the brain (and not vice versa) it seems impossible to prove causality. Consciousness it the ultimate tool of our perception; each of our senses feed into consciousness. It's somewhat difficult to spend your career looking at slides under a microscope, and then realize that you now want to study your microscope under a microscope. It is difficult to objectively analyze our most fundamental tool.
As per the bias of science, it is biased in terms of what we are capable of observing; in other words, things we lack the technology to observe or quantify will remain out of the domain of scientific speculation. This is fairly entertaining when looking at the history of science because there is always the temptation to form a hypothesis with recently discovered technology and then believe that this is the "definitive" understanding; even though all theories in science are inherently tentative. While some aspects of cognition have highly tentative scientific hypotheses, consciousness as a whole is still out of the domain of science to properly understand.

[Connor MacLeod]

Since your going to be a stickler for definitions I'd like one for "information entropy" as used in the context of one of your previous posts on this thread. I have a feel for what fatboy means when he writes "enlightened" or "disembodied" but your usage of "information entropy" transmits 0 bits.

Sure, sorry about the confusion, all I mean is that the information which describes the system we are talking about has a non-zero length, in other words, there is some form of symbolic (and possibly abstract) substrate for consciousness to take place on.

I guess I'm a bit picky about the use of mathematical terminology in scientific/mathematical discussions. Information theoretic entropy has to do with random variables/distributions. A fixed structure (say a fixed binary string) has zero entropy since it is fixed and known. There is a notion of algorithmic information which might be closer to what you're getting at, but this (if I recall correctly) is only well-defined in an asymptotic sense (i.e. string length to infinity); the reason for this is that one can always create a customized Turing machine for which there exists extremely short programs which can reproduce some given finite set of finite length strings.

Edited by Connor MacLeod, 17 January 2009 - 07:58 AM.

[fatboy]

You might as well have never even said it.

Let's say I never did.

[fatboy]

You might as well have never even said it.

Yeah ... dude ... I checked, I never did.

Edited by fatboy, 19 January 2009 - 02:50 AM.

[fatboy]

Ok, but before you start giving out definitive answers like you did, I think terms like 'disembodiment' need to be defined in a scientific manner.

Because... a statement with no empirical evidence is as valuable as... well, nothing. You might as well have never even said it.

That's where we are all going dude. To a place with no empiricial evidence. To a place where both nothing and everything is. Because I believe both nothing and everything is. And it only takes one of us to believe it. And I do ... I hope you are well.

Edited by fatboy, 19 January 2009 - 03:02 AM.

[JohnDoe1234]

That's where we are all going dude. To a place with no empiricial evidence.

Sorry, you're not going anywhere dude.... your dude-molecules are just going to deteriorate and form new compounds and substances. There's plenty of empirical evidence for that :(

And it only takes one of us to believe it. And I do

Once again.. Sorry, but Belief != Truth

It doesn't matter if you or I, Connor, Petia or even God himself believes something, it doesn't imply truth at all.

Let's say I never did.

Yeah ... dude ... I checked, I never did.

You did:

No empirical evidence. Only "brain in a vat" thought experiments.

...

This is obvious. To look at it scientifically, I see only correlation, not causality. Until we can truly use deterministic molecular modeling of the brain so that we can predict a given response in consciousness to a given physical stimulus to the brain (and not vice versa) it seems impossible to prove causality.

There is a fine line between observing causation and correlation... I would definitely consider what we have observed so far as causative as it gets. I see how mixing these can cause trouble, but I see no reason why we should even doubt the information we have. Introducing a new element to the problem (consciousness as a separate, non-material process) is merely a digression into a highly speculative non-falsifiable realm. I don't understand why one would choose to blame consciousness on something they know they can't understand yet and drop it, rather than trying to take it apart as it appears.

And I agree, it is hard for a tool or a system to study itself. That is for sure!

I guess I'm a bit picky about the use of mathematical terminology in scientific/mathematical discussions. Information theoretic entropy has to do with random variables/distributions. A fixed structure (say a fixed binary string) has zero entropy since it is fixed and known. There is a notion of algorithmic information which might be closer to what you're getting at, but this (if I recall correctly) is only well-defined in an asymptotic sense (i.e. string length to infinity); the reason for this is that one can always create a customized Turing machine for which there exists extremely short programs which can reproduce some given finite set of finite length strings.

You're absolutely right Connor! I stand corrected. I was approaching the definition from a physical standpoint, not a mathematical one. So it would in this case be more accurate for me to say perhaps Kolmogorov complexity.

Since you bring up the topic of Turing machines, I have a question, and I am interested in your opinion on it....

Given the following Turing machine:

1. 0bbL0 - Skips through all blanks
2. 001N1 - Flips all 0's to 1's (simulating a form of memory/action)
3. 010N1 - Flips all 1's to 0's (simulating a form of memory/action)
4. 110L0 - Reverses what it has done in the last step
5. 101L0 - Reverses what it has done in the last step

Lines 2/3 act as a simple agent acting in a world
Lines 4/5 act upon or introspect on previous actions by the super-simplstic agent

Thus, through the fact that lines 4/5 make decisions based on another part of the system, they are technically aware of another non-static state in the machine, so this machine at least has a basic property of self-awareness.

So, do you think I would be making a mistake by inferring that the machine has at least some basic form of consciousness?

I ask you, because you seem to at least know the direction from which I am attacking the problem...

[Connor MacLeod]

Since you bring up the topic of Turing machines, I have a question, and I am interested in your opinion on it....

Given the following Turing machine:

1. 0bbL0 - Skips through all blanks
2. 001N1 - Flips all 0's to 1's (simulating a form of memory/action)
3. 010N1 - Flips all 1's to 0's (simulating a form of memory/action)
4. 110L0 - Reverses what it has done in the last step
5. 101L0 - Reverses what it has done in the last step

Lines 2/3 act as a simple agent acting in a world
Lines 4/5 act upon or introspect on previous actions by the super-simplstic agent

Thus, through the fact that lines 4/5 make decisions based on another part of the system, they are technically aware of another non-static state in the machine, so this machine at least has a basic property of self-awareness.

So, do you think I would be making a mistake by inferring that the machine has at least some basic form of consciousness?

I ask you, because you seem to at least know the direction from which I am attacking the problem...

I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with the notation you are using, so I'm not quite sure I understand what you're getting at. I'm probably not a good person to ask about this since I'm of the mind that the problem of consciousness is pretty much intractable.

[Loot Perish]

subjective time in dreams/hallucinations etc can be much different than in real life. In your dreams you can feel as if years have gone by while it really only took seconds.

It is possible that when we die, our last thoughts may be stretched out to infinity, subjectively. In that case, we may feel as if we never die.

My dreams that I remember almost never good. Waking up is a rescue from them. One wonders what a subjective eternity of such feelings would do to you. If anything.

Idle speculation....

Edited by provider, 12 February 2009 - 02:46 AM.

[cyborgdreamer]

Maybe, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. I mean, for a mind to survive brain death seems about as likely as a program magically going somewhare when your computer is melted. It's all information, after all.

[Brafarality]

Chance of consciousness surviving bodily demise = 100%
Don't worry. The 'you' that is 'you' will not die.
The survival of consciousness will not be anything like religious depictions, just a continuity, but it could be a terrifying one.

My one dread is that all the consciousness-es that have been created are stuck in little stars that shine in the eternal night and cannot move or communicate with anyone else.
This could account for some of the eternal damnation perceptions of some religions.
Somehow someone may have glimpsed what comes beyond even the NDE and realized he would be forever alone and deprived of sensory input.

Actually, this could be only temporary:

Perhaps the 'you' evolves after earthly bodily demise and the 'purgatory' only lasts a certain length of time, determined by natural laws, when finally consciousness develops into its semi-permanent post-body nature (similar to adulthood, I guess) and then becomes free to 'move' and experience reality in some way, since perhaps consciousness reinterprets every universe it finds itself within in order to perceive it the way we perceive this universe and, until then, there is nothingness, void or maybe a trapped sense.

That is, the tunnel, purgatory, then the wandering spirit.

[JohnDoe1234]

Maybe, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. I mean, for a mind to survive brain death seems about as likely as a program magically going somewhare when your computer is melted. It's all information, after all.

I think you nailed it.

[ksbalaji]

Maybe, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. I mean, for a mind to survive brain death seems about as likely as a program magically going somewhere when your computer is melted. It's all information, after all.

I think you nailed it.

Can I say that this person, the conscious being, and owner of this melting computer, who is all along understanding this information called a program, different from the information being understood? Can't it be that the person who had this mind, brain and the information he once understood, controlled and monitored has lost them? Does not the distinction of this conscious person flow from his capacity to understand information? Oops! It is really blunt, slippery and may need more beating to nail it.