Our view of Death

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Can I interpret that as follows :- Atheists who define themselves as bundles of cells which undergo various biochemical reactions and which go on sputtering till the brain cells go phut one day and that's that, is it ?

i cant speak for all atheists but thats how i see it.

Has anyone seen "A Waking Life"?

That movie postulates that as we die there is upto 6 minutes of brain activity left in a person. They say that our mind goes into a dream state where time can be so distorted as to experience way more amount of time that in the reality of the dying body is only 6 minutes.
So in the movie the guy goes on and on , talking to a bunch of people and then finally finding out that he is dreaming and then realizing that he is probably dead because he seems to keep waking up into a dream , and then ... [spoiler alert]

Suffice to say, that it proposes 2 interesting ideas to me.
1. We could have a near infinite time left to our dreaming minds before our body actually dies , to experience whatever lessons weren't learnt in that life. (Remember dreams can seem just as real as waking life)

2. This life is actually just a dream from a former (physical) life . Perhaps not even a humans life - the possibilities are staggering .

Either way, this view of life satisfies the scientific view of the world as well as the spiritual/religious one.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Either way, this view of life satisfies the scientific view of the world as well as the spiritual/religious one.

No, it doesn't satisfy the scientific view of the world. Its just wishful thinking by those that are afraid of death.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Can I interpret that as follows :- Atheists who define themselves as bundles of cells which undergo various biochemical reactions and which go on sputtering till the brain cells go phut one day and that's that, is it ?

I think you probably could, providing you don't take the next step, as many religious people do, in stating that therefore atheists view life as 'meaningless', 'hopeless', or having no moral compass.

We have all experienced 'non-life' (about 13-14 billion years, depending on your view of when time started, and ignoring those who believe in reincarnation etc) i.e. before we were born. My view is that death is most likely to be the same state.

I have been challenged as to why I would presume that 'death' must be the same as 'non-life'. My answer is always the same. I do not presume anything of the sort. I just haven't seen anything to suggest that any other explanation should be regarded as more likely.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
My O.P.seeks views of atheists about Death because atheism is based on Reason and Scientific Method and disavows Faith. As I read the views of atheists here, I am curious as to how they view themselves. Free Will is denied by modern neuroscientists and without Free Will, human beings are reduced to a masses of flesh, bones, muscles etc.subjected to a ser ...[text shortened]... Judaism or Buddhism except that Buddhism denies soul and Death is probably a finality for them.

The results of neuroscience are causing some reconsideration of our notions of free will, as at http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2006/12/post_11.php. But it is too strong to say free will is thusly "denied" by modern neuroscience.

In the case of the person cited in the link above, his tendency toward pedophilia went away when a tumor was removed from his brain, then came back, and went away again, after the tumor grew back and then the regrowth was removed. The issues raised are something that has to be looked at by atheists and theists alike. But people of both sorts recognize limitations -- transient or permanent -- on free will, or, more to the point, on the degree of personal control and moral responsibility that attends our actions. Findings in neuroscience may temper the legal system's way of assigning guilt and punishment versus mental incapacity and treatment, but negative feedback in the form of restrictions on freedom and removal from free society will always attend antisocial behavior as a factor to be considered by the person planning to do harm. This recognition does not reduce us to "a masses [sic] of flesh, bones, muscles etc.subjected to a series of biochemical reactions, with no clue as to the meaning of their own existence." It never has and never will, as long as we are conscious beings.

I take mild exception to how you characterize atheists; mild because I simply don't see myself in the characteristics you assign to them. Maybe my use of the term "non-theist' has more purpose than I thought. These are the characteristics you mention and apply, prior to asking the well thought out open-ended questions you ask in your OP and this follow-up.

Originally posted by FMF
How do you figure that? Personally, I would say imagining (and hoping for) an afterlife actually serves to replace the "reality of [your] death" with something that is not 'real'; rather like a doctor telling a patient that they are not going to die tomorrow when in fact they are going to die tomorrow. Does this 'reassuring' diagnosis by the doctor really help or "prepare" that patient to "face" the reality of death?

Hindu view ( based on Faith ) does not offer any impractical remedies for the real hard fact of Death that we face here in our dynamic and ever changing but real world.
All that it says i) for the practical use of the warrior who is about to face death, as in the Bhagavad Geeta, doing battle is your duty as prescribed, it may mean death or your victory. If you die, you will undoubtedly go to Heaven, if not you will enjoy the kingdom won by you on this earth. ii) For the Sadhak i.e.the seeker, it says that you are not your body only. You are not only your body, mind, senses but more importantly something beyond these i.e you are Atma or the individual soul. The self same Bhagavad Geeta, after telling Arjuna the warrior some home truths as in i) above, tells him ( seeing that he is ready to absorb some more knowledge ) that just as one changes clothes after they are worn out and gets new clothes to wear, humans cast off their bodies and take on new bodies. So the wise one does not bother about Death.

Originally posted by twhitehead
First, I would like to clarify here that atheists are those people who do not believe in God. Many atheists I know accept the scientific method as the best way to learn about the universe, but this is hardly a requirement of atheism. There are probably plenty of atheists who are very unscientific and may even have Faith in something other than a god.
I m ...[text shortened]... ic many times on this forum and theists generally run for the hills every time it comes up.

Well, I am ready to debate, no problem but here it is 10:35 pm and I have to eat. Your post certainly deserves a reply. Maybe tomorrow.

Originally posted by JS357
The results of neuroscience are causing some reconsideration of our notions of free will, as at http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2006/12/post_11.php. But it is too strong to say free will is thusly "denied" by modern neuroscience.

In the case of the person cited in the link above, his tendency toward pedophilia went away when a tumor was removed from his brai ...[text shortened]... asking the well thought out open-ended questions you ask in your OP and this follow-up.

Thanks for the reply.If possible, after I eat now as it is 10:35 pm here or tomorrow, I will reply. Thanks again.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Has anyone seen "A Waking Life"?

That movie postulates that as we die there is upto 6 minutes of brain activity left in a person. They say that our mind goes into a dream state where time can be so distorted as to experience way more amount of time that in the reality of the dying body is only 6 minutes.
So in the movie the guy goes on and on , tal ...[text shortened]... ew of life satisfies the scientific view of the world as well as the spiritual/religious one.

Please see my replies to FMF and twhithead, tomorrow, certainly.

Originally posted by JS357
The results of neuroscience are causing some reconsideration of our notions of free will, as at http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2006/12/post_11.php. But it is too strong to say free will is thusly "denied" by modern neuroscience.

In the case of the person cited in the link above, his tendency toward pedophilia went away when a tumor was removed from his brai ...[text shortened]... asking the well thought out open-ended questions you ask in your OP and this follow-up.

Actually what I have read sometime back was that according to neuro-scientists, the action of a human being is the first thing that takes place and the decision to take that action is taken subsequently by the brain ! The idea to do something does not arise first as was thought traditionally but the tests showed that the thoughts or decisions were slower than the actual actions by a few microseconds. Our actions dictate our thoughts !! Since the actions are a result of certain bio-chemical reactions, the neuro-scientists have averred that we do not have free will of our own. At one stroke, the neuro-scientists have reduced us to automatons conforming our thoughts to actions already taken. We are reduced to just jumbles of flesh,bones and muscles controlled by a set of bio-chemical reactions-- which probably have been set off by some preceding physical/chemical reactions and so on. It is this view that I am against and I want to argue against those who hold these views about us being a bunch of cells driven by bio-chemistry.Since most of the atheists here are prone to think on these lines, I wanted their views about death.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Theists and Atheists have different views about Death, everyone knows that. Theists all over the world, across various religions, believe that Death , as we know it, is not an end but just an intermediate happening. But how do the Atheists view Death, not only in general terms but as a personal event which that person has to face one day ?
I think tha ...[text shortened]... ygote ?
I will be thankful for atheists if they state here how they view their impending death.

If you are correct and the vast majority of thiests believe that death is a new beginning, do they ever wonder what bearing this might have as a motivational causation for their willingness to believe in their god despite the lack of hard evidence? or more specifically do you?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Actually what I have read sometime back was that according to neuro-scientists, the action of a human being is the first thing that takes place and the decision to take that action is taken subsequently by the brain ! The idea to do something does not arise first as was thought traditionally but the tests showed that the thoughts or decisions were slower ...[text shortened]... e most of the atheists here are prone to think on these lines, I wanted their views about death.

I can tell you that even though I am not an atheist. They believe death is
the end of thought of a person and he no longer exists. Poof, the person
is gone in death. There is no soul hanging around as a ghost and no spirit
returning to God, because there is no God or gods. A dead person is just a
pile of chemicals that deteriorates by eating itself up by chemical reactions.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Actually what I have read sometime back was that according to neuro-scientists, the action of a human being is the first thing that takes place and the decision to take that action is taken subsequently by the brain ! The idea to do something does not arise first as was thought traditionally but the tests showed that the thoughts or decisions were slower ...[text shortened]... e most of the atheists here are prone to think on these lines, I wanted their views about death.

I applaud your bringing some philosophy into the forum; I think you are hinting at epiphenomenalism as at:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epiphenomenalism/

which starts out: "Epiphenomenalism is the view that mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events."

see also

http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~gallaghr/gall05epiphen.pdf

Which says among lots more, "In contrast to the position that I have just outlined, Daniel Dennett (2003) suggests that the processes that constitute free will need not be
conscious and need not depend on conscious decision. Indeed, he considers it Cartesian to suggest that consciousness is necessary for free will (Dennett 2003: 242n3) "

This is a rather provocative remark. At any rate I am suggesting that the people you think are touting the bunch-o-cells position may have fallen into the trap of Cartesian dualism and then fell in love with the materialisic half.

The other string you are plucking is reductionism; that's a whole other discussion. My view is that levels of explanation are imagined by humans for convenience. It is unnecessarily complicated to explain Bob's liking to restore '65 Mustangs on the basis of particle physics, and that level of explanation does not have ontological priority over the "Bob had a good time in a Mustang once" level.

So, I will retreat to a safe corner and watch. Maybe kibitz. Thanks for the chance to use some big words 🙂.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo

Page 1
Since my view of Death is that it is an intermediate event, it prepares me much better to face the reality of my death.

Page 2
Hindu view ( based on Faith ) does not offer any impractical remedies for the real hard fact of Death that we face here in our dynamic and ever changing but real world.

Which is it to be?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, it doesn't satisfy the scientific view of the world. Its just wishful thinking by those that are afraid of death.

No it's not wishful thinking, it's logical deduction. Or haven't you had a dream?

Cant you entertain the possibilty that your whole life is a dream?
Have you ever had a dream within a dream, where you wake up only to find yourself in another dream?

Also, with dreams, it is a contention of some sciency guys that dreams are only a reworking of things you have already experienced, but I contend that you can experience totally new things within dreams. Things that you have not ever seen in your waking life, and therefor things that aren't just a reworking of things already experienced but totally new things.

Is it me or do you just cherry pick through posts that you obviously have a beef with but couldn't be bothered answering many of the major points, instead just picking a choosing a line here or there to refute?

BTW, I'm not afraid of death in the slightest.
Whether I am totally wrong in my world views or partially right, (I concede that I am not totally right), I will continue on the path that I have chosen , that is only known to me, whatever the consequences.

Sometimes it seems as if you have a reflex action with responding to posts, where you cant help but impose a seemingly empircal scientific view of things onto others when you know full well that science is not fully developed and may never be fully developed . You act as if science ,especially physics, is set in stone and is the final say on everything that we observe when you know full well that things like quantum theory is just in it's infancy and taking science to new weird and wonderful places. Or are you still back with Newton and the apple?