Death Disrupted? | Episode 1701 | Closer To Truth

Death Disrupted? | Episode 1701 | Closer To Truth


I focus on death
because I fear death. But, fear is not my only reason. I focus on death because
death is the cessation of consciousness, and consciousness
is an astonishing thing, radically unexpected. That consciousness emerges
with birth and winks out with death troubles me. All religions I know have
schemes to disrupt death, offering in one form or another
with ease life after death. I’d like to be hopeful, but I’m
compelled to be skeptical. Some claim evidence for
postmortem survival, but again, I’m a skeptic. Am I cornered, nowhere to go? Bound by angst,
I try to break out. Can death be disrupted? I’m Robert Lawrence Kuhn,
and Closer to Truth is my journey to find out. To disrupt death, if such
be possible, I seek a broad perspective. I’d like a landscape
of possibilities. To begin, I need
context for my angst. I meet an atheist and
philosopher who explores personal identity,
religion, and death. Julian, I’d like
to live forever. I’m sure you would, too. I know you’re a materialist
and you don’t believe in God. Is life after death
even remotely possible? It’s possible in one sense,
but it’s impossible in another. What I mean is this. If you think that what makes us
who we are is basically that we are a collection of things,
we are an organized system of matter, thought, and
consciousness, then it’s conceivably possible that that
system could be reconstructed, going again, rebooted in some
other form in some other realm. So, if there were a God who is
omnipotent, then in a way, yes, there’s nothing to stop that God
reconstituting us in some way, as long as you accept that we
don’t need to be made of the same physical stuff. But, in another way, I think
life after death, or eternal life, isn’t really possible for
the reason that I think the kind of people we are is that
we’re constantly changing. There’s a very real sense
in which if I say I’m not the person I was aged eight, that’s
not just metaphorically true, there’s something
literally true in that. And if we were to live forever,
there would be a continuity, there would be an unbroken chain
between me and someone with my name in, say, a thousand years’
time, but in what sense would that person really still be me? I think we’re
constantly in flux. We’re constantly, as it were,
coming out and into existence. The I who exists now begins
to fade to exist immediately. And for that reason, I think
there’s something incoherent with the idea of living forever. Well, certainly to be simple,
the physical molecules in our body change over very
frequently, so we’re not literally the same atoms and
molecules that we were a few weeks ago, and we’ll
have a total change. So, we’re dealing with
the information patterns, the memories, the subtleties
that make ourselves selves. To be a person is to be
something that is constantly in flux and changing. And even memories, we build our
sense of self and our continuity over time on memory
a lot of the time. Memory is actually
extremely unreliable, right? And memory is as much a
construction of the past as it is a recollection of it. People are convinced they
remember things in their childhood which actually are
sometimes checked by other people and turn out to be wrong. So, our connections with our
past selves are, at the best of times, relatively weak. And so, that means that a
connection to the future self in a thousand years,
a million years… And external beyond that. So, there could be
an eternal process. There could be, as it were, an
eternal succession of selves of which I am one part, but the
I who exists now, in order for it to be the same I in a
million years’ time would have to be like, frozen now
and regenerated then. But, that’s not what life is. The life of a person
is to change. So, I think we have to embrace
the idea that it is of the nature of being a person,
it’s the nature of existence, that change is
the only constant. And if we accept that,
then we’re gonna have no reason to even want for that process
of change to go on forever. Well, wait a minute. I followed you up
until that point. And now you’re telling me I
don’t want the process of change of myself to go on forever. Well, you’re dead
wrong about that. I want my process of
change to go on forever. I think I have a coherence, and
when I think back to when I was 12 or 15, I mean, I know more
now than I did then, but I feel like the same person. I know I’m different, but I do
want that continuity to go on. I don’t want it just
metaphorical, I don’t want to be a memory in God’s
imagination or a bunch of bits in some computer. I would like to live forever. Well, it’s possible to want to. It’s coherent to want to. And it’s also true that if
things – unless things are terrible for you, at any given
point, you’ll probably want to have tomorrow, right? So, in that sense, the desire
to live forever is natural, but, I think the key point is, if
your desire to live forever is based on an idea that in a
couple hundred of years’ time that person is really going
to be the same person as you, that’s a mistake. By all means, desire that the
process of which you are a part goes on without end. Don’t for one minute think
that it means that, you know, there is going to be this core
essence of youness which is still there in 30 years,
in 300 years’ time, 30 centuries time. If someone was to say, take a
pill now, you’ll live forever, I’m not sure I’d take it. If someone were to say,
take this pill now, an extra 30 years, 40 years,
healthy life, I’m sure I’d jump at it, completely. But, we don’t have any
experience of what it is like to live over really
vast timescales. It might turn out
to be actually hell. That might be what hell is,
living forever. You get that pill,
send it to me. It’s yours. I’d gulp the pill, Julian. I’d take the risk. But, medicine, no matter how
magical, can only add some number of years. And in the endless ocean of
everlasting time, any number of years is but a drop. What about uploading one’s brain
to a non-biological substrate? Can materialistic technology
alchemize life after death? My skepticism runneth over. But, I asked a philosopher who
envisions a transhuman future, Max Moore. Max, you are a philosopher of
mind, and you are involved in the transhumanism movement
using technology to radically extend life. So, putting those
things together, is life after death possible? Very tough question. Depending on how
we define death. Concepts of death are not very
well developed, and they’ve been very much based on
historical circumstances. So, a few decades ago,
someone stopped breathing, their heart stopped beating. We said, they’re dead. That was it. But, now we don’t do that. We might call them clinically
dead, temporarily, but we don’t call that real death. They’re not even legally dead. What we do is we start
doing CPR and defibrillation and so on, and they
come back to life. So, were they dead? Well, not in any
real definite sense. I think the same is true today
with people that we call dead. What we’re really saying is
today’s medicine can’t make this person better. They can maybe revive them
temporarily, but the information that’s in their brain,
that stores their personality, that represents who they are,
if that’s still there, I don’t think they’re really
dead in any final sense. Now, if you talk about
biological death, yes, you could have life
after biological death. The body could die. If you could then transfer the
patterns of the personality, everything that’s stored in your
– the patterns of your brain, if you could somehow replicate
that in a different substrate, then I think in that sense, life
after death is a possibility. Okay, so, let’s explore that. Certainly if you take all
the information in our brains, it’s huge, but it
is not inaccessible. There certainly looks to be
computing power that will vastly expand the totality of the human
brain, so, it is conceivable, if you look at all the
information in the brain, to upload that. Do you believe that it is,
in principle, possible to really upload your, Max’s first-person
subjective experiences, certainly with your
memories and personality, into a different medium? I think it is. I’d be very surprised
if it weren’t. It requires – there would be
some, essentially, mystical property of the brain, some kind
of magical property that we have no idea of that we
can’t somehow duplicate. Now, even if there was a
mysterious property that we haven’t discovered yet,
presumably if it’s still a physical property, we would
eventually discover it, and then replicate it. So, it’s not to say that
any being walking around, talking like me, acting like
me, would actually be me. I think it would be possible to
create something that spoke like me and appeared to be me,
but inside was actually empty. And that’s a philosophical
zombie, as they say. There are forces
that like to talk about philosophical zombies. I think that would actually
be quite hard to destruct. I think it would be easier to
create a new being on a new platform who actually was
conscious, because you’re probably going to have to really
work hard around that for them not to be conscious. It’s a lot easier to
actually be conscious to act like you’re conscious. So, let’s say that
you can upload. It presents the
very serious problem, I believe, of duplication. What’s the difference between
uploading me into another medium and taking a cell of mine and
creating, making it a stem cell and creating a
whole other person? That other person is
my identical twin, but it is not me. It doesn’t have my first-person
experience at all. There are deep problems here. In some sense, you have to say,
because of the transitivity of identity, none of
those people are you. They’re not identical to you,
because identity breaks down as a logical relation. But, who cares? What I care about is surviving. I don’t care about
my identity surviving. I want to survive. So, I don’t care about
a logical relationship. I care that my personality,
my memories, my values, my goals continue. Now, if they continue on in ten
people, they still continued on, and there are real problems,
because which one goes with my wife? Which one gets my job? Who gets the property? Are we going to divide it up? So, there would be huge
practical problems, but those might be solvable in
some possible future. Well, there is a difference,
though, between your memories, your personalities, and your
inner experience of knowing that you’re the I behind it,
that you have this – – Yeah, but they would all
be the person with the same – they would all have
the same ancestor. Each of them could legitimately
say, I am a continuer of the – They certainly would say that. But if you’re sitting here and
you have your sense, and somebody told me, we just
uploaded you, would you feel any different, you sitting here? No. You wouldn’t feel any different? I wouldn’t feel any different. Except in the sense that –
this is kind of a classic thought experience. What if you offered me a billion
dollars if you could kill me and you would give the billion
dollars to my new upload? I would say, okay, because I
don’t think I’m losing anything. Just like I have moved across
the room from one body to another in effect. There is no further
fact of my identity. It just is a collection of
all these properties that make me who I am. Now, if you diverge, if
you’ve been living apart for a year or longer – Or a microsecond. – It would be very different. I’m asking just at that precise
instant what you’re defining as different, because I think you
fully answered the question by saying when you’ve duplicated
the ten others, you confirm, you talk to them, but you
personally, your I does not feel any difference whatsoever? No. No. And therefore, I would argue
that all of those others are very, very close identical twins
of yours, but they’re not you. If you die, you die. If you had that billion-dollar
bet, one of your twins really had a very stupid progenitor. Well, see, I don’t
see it that way. I think if it is
literally microseconds, then we’re practically
identical. I don’t think anything
is really being lost. Again, because I don’t think
there’s a soul that’s unique to each of those individuals. The more they diverge, the more
of a problem that would be. I don’t think it’s really that
different than if, during my sleep, someone came and did some
brain damage or a blood vessel blew and it changed –
I lost a bunch of memories and personality. I think that would be a lot
worse than ending my life and having something absolutely
identical to me continuing from that point. But you, as that inner person,
that inner personal I that you feel now would have
ceased to exist. See, I think it’s
extremely counterintuitive. I know it’s very hard to say,
how could you possibly think it would be okay to do that? But, I think it’s based on an
intuition from our long history of thinking that we are really
something other than our bodies, that we actually are a soul or
something that exists beyond the collections of these qualities
of psychological connectedness. I think it is a very hard
intuition to shake, but I really do think that I wouldn’t lose
anything if I just uploaded and you destroyed the original body. I’m not saying I wouldn’t be
concerned, because it’s very hard to shake that, even for
myself, having thought about it for a long time. But, I think I shouldn’t
be concerned. It’s not a rational concern. Max and I, we’re both
sure about what counts. He goes for survival of
personality, memories, values. I go for continuity
of inner awareness. Sure, I’d want to take along my
personality, memories, values. But, continuity is what counts,
and I’m skeptical that uploading my brain can continue my mind. Duplicates, replicates may
be indistinguishable from the original, even in principle, but
when felt inside, how can they be identical to the original? Max thinks it doesn’t matter. I think it’s all that matters. My dispute with
Max is fundamental. What happens to my first-person
inner experience? A strong materialist, Max
dismisses the notion that there’s anything mystical or
magical about consciousness. Notions of a soul,
he believes, are myths. Some see evidence of
survival from so-called near-death experiences. I’m criticized for dismissing
such anecdotal reports. Do I err? I hear of an intensive care
physician and medical scientist who makes new claims,
Sam Parnia. Sam, your work in studying the
nature of consciousness during cardiac arrest, what some
people would call near-death experiences, some would say
cast doubt on the scientific assumption that life
after death is impossible. Do you think that’s right? Going through the science of it,
we don’t have all the answers today, but, I think we’ve made
enormous strides to answer the question of what
happens when we die. We have to remember that
death is a process, okay? And just because a person has
died and they have been given a time of death, declared, and
essentially, you know, called a corpse, the cells inside the
person’s body have not become so damaged that we
cannot bring them back. So, as science has progressed,
we are now able to manipulate those processes for hours after
death and bring back a whole person and study their
consciousness during that time, which was impossible until
very recently, right? And so, the incredible
discovery through this is, one, is that we can bring
back people and send them home. We can really have the miracle
of science take someone who is dead and make them alive again,
which is amazing. But the other amazing part of
this is that we can study what people experience when they
have gone beyond death. And the evidence, so far,
suggests that that entity we call the human mind,
consciousness, what the Greeks called the psyche that was
later translated into the soul, the me, Sam, does not become
annihilated just after a person has died, even if we write them
a death note and certify them as being dead. That entity continues. And it continues even when
the brain does not seem to be functioning, raising the
question that consciousness may be a separate entity
from the brain. It’s not magical, it’s just
not discovered yet. But, it doesn’t die. Now, I can’t tell you what
happens three hours, four hours, ten hours after
a person has died. I can’t tell you whether
consciousness gradually fades away and disappears
into thin air as some people might believe. Or, does it continue for
ever longer periods of time? Certainly, the bodily functions,
bodily cells will die with time. There’s no doubt about that. What happens to our
real self, consciousness? Is that, as I explained, it
continues for a period of time. Now, you have to make
your own conclusions. I don’t have evidence beyond
that, which is one of two ways. One is that you may say, well,
okay, I’m gonna accept that consciousness may continue
for a few hours after death in some format, and
gradually wither away. Or, you may also argue that,
well, if consciousness was able to continue when the brain was
not functioning, why would it suddenly disappear away
a few hours later? Because don’t forget, even
ten minutes after you’ve died, even 30 seconds after
you’ve died, your brain does not function anymore. Even when we do CPR, when
we try to resuscitate someone, there’s not enough blood that
gets into the brain to enable the brain to function,
even during resuscitation. The brain remains flat-lined. And so, what happens? Well, certainly there
is life after death for a period of time. Does it continue forever? I don’t know. But certainly, for a
period of time afterwards, consciousness remains. I am paying attention. I see why near-death
data can be compelling. But still, I am
stuck in skepticism. My doctorate is in brain
science, and the simplest explanation is that
consciousness can continue for a short time beyond clinical
death, even if brain electrical activity appears flat-lined. After all, the person
was resuscitated. How else could he or she report
the near-death experience? Resuscitation is
no resurrection. So, to me, no good evidence of a
soul, little hope for uploading. Putting aside religion,
death seems undisruptable. I seek a philosopher who, while
not believing in a personal theistic God, is willing to
consider ultimate matters beyond the physical, John Shellenberg. John, you’re an atheist. And yet, you’re not quite as
willing as others to dismiss life after death. Why is that? I’ve gone back and forth
on this afterlife question. I feel the tug from science and
from the great influence that science has in our culture,
but precisely because of how great that influence is, I’m
also inclined to wonder whether there might be something
that we’re missing and to be open to at least thinking about
how there could be such a thing as life after death. There are various other
influences that have me a skeptic on the issue as
opposed to a disbeliever. One of them concerns the
question of consciousness. If we could say that
consciousness is entirely reducible to something about the
physical brain, then perhaps I would have to be a disbeliever
instead of a skeptic. But, I think that we still may
have a very long way to go in trying to understand
consciousness. And consciousness, of course,
is at the heart of the afterlife question. So, I’m a skeptic about
the nature of consciousness. How can I help but be a skeptic
about the afterlife instead of a disbeliever? We’re still at an early stage
in this whole process of intelligent inquiry
on our planet. Part of my thinking about that,
about our place in time, has led me to be a skeptic about an
important religious proposition which I call Ultimism, which is
the claim that there is a reality that is ultimate both in
the nature of things and value and in what it can continue
to the value of our own lives. All right, I’m a skeptic,
for various reasons, about that religious claim. But, that religious
claim entails that there is an afterlife. This is one of the interesting
features that it has. You might think that it’s barren
of content, that it’s just empty by comparison with
something like theism. But, one of the implications
I’d had to face up to, one of the implications of
Ultimism is that there is an afterlife for at
least some of us. Why? Well, because it just strains
credulity to think that some of the people who have lived on
this planet and who have died perhaps very early, who have
lived very horrendous lives, that they should really
have had access to soteriological ultimacy? It just strains credulity,
right? So, if there really us
a soteriological element, religious element, then
there must be an afterlife. That’s an implication. So, if I’m skeptical about
Ultimism, I’m going to be skeptical as well about
this matter of the afterlife, which is all bound up with it. Because you need an afterlife,
potentially, to make your Ultimism have any teeth to it? Yeah. What does it need to have teeth? Well, it needs at least not to
be such that we should believe it to be false. That’s fair. A very minimal condition. And I think that’s really all
you need, because so long as you don’t believe it to be false,
if you’re in doubt about it, it is an appropriate object
of what I call skeptical faith. Well, you could have an Ultimism
that just has metaphysical foundations that the universe or
the laws of physics have some root fact existence and
there’s nothing else behind it, that there are no values in the
world, everything is all chance, and that we therefore have
no personal connection, human beings are – You could have what would
properly be called an ultimate reality that way, it would
just be a thinner one. A metaphysically ultimate
reality, the sort that even science is seeking. But, you wouldn’t have what
satisfies the description of what I’m calling Ultimism. I’ve given a name to this claim
that needs a name, because people have often distinguished
between religious claims like theism and the more general
idea that there is something. They say there is something. I’ve given a name to that. So, your Ultimism is
a religious claim. It’s a religious claim. It’s a divine claim, but
it’s not a theistic claim. That’s right. And for that, you absolutely
need an afterlife to make sense of it. Well, as I see it now, if
somebody could show me that Ultimism could be true without
any afterlife, I might be comforted by that, strangely
enough, because I think I would want there to be an afterlife. But intellectually, I might
be comforted by that, precisely because science makes
it so hard for us to believe in an afterlife at all. But, I think looking at things
properly, with the philosophical attitude of wanting to
understand, for its own sake, not to build up any ideology,
whether that be religious or naturalistic, I think we
ought to be skeptics instead. But, if your Ultimism has a
religious claim to it, how can you have a religious claim,
knowing the world as it is, without an afterlife? Well, that’s what I find very
hard to see, and that’s why I say, I think, at present,
that Ultimism entails that there is an afterlife,
for at least some of us. I mean, some of us have a pretty
good go at things in this life, but plenty of us don’t. And so, there would need to be
an afterlife in order for the potential of such individuals to
have any hope of being realized. And I think that religion
promises that the potential of all of us at least
can be realized. I’d go with you
to the conclusion, except I can’t differentiate. You can have the greatest life
in the world and you could be the King of Persia for
80 years or 100 years, and if you’re losing eternity,
that’s as if nothing. So, afterlife is for
everybody or for nobody. Everybody or nobody, okay. I can see why you
might go that route. I’m with John that it’s strange
credulity if the universe has ultimate meaning, if existence
has ultimate purpose, and there is no life after death. Of course, there may be no
ultimate meaning or purpose. That would be coherent,
if unhappy, and consistent with science. But, to me, wishful thinker that
I am, it just doesn’t ring true. For the same reason that
consciousness seems such an astonishing thing, radically
unexpected, permanent death, winking out consciousness,
also seems absurd. Honestly, all the imagined
responses to death, religious and otherwise,
seem bizarre, contradictory. So, how could
death be disrupted? Four ways. One, nonphysical soul or spirit. Two, resurrection by
God or something like God. Three, cosmic force or principal
like cosmic consciousness. Four, upload to a
non-biological substrate. Not thrilled with these choices? Well, it’s strange credulity
that there is nothing. That’s my credo. Striving to get closer to truth. For complete interviews
and for further information, please visit
www.closertotruth.com.

62 Comments on "Death Disrupted? | Episode 1701 | Closer To Truth"


  1. An afterlife would almost certainly require a god.
    That god would likely be the creator of the universe.
    You would then be proposing a grander and more powerful entity to explain the universe than the problem of the universe itself.
    That is not a logical progression or in line with current cosmology.
    A naturalistic approach provides the answers to a reasonable degree, we don't know everything and never will, but the main boxes are ticked!
    I have been resigned to making the most of my time on earth and when I'm gone, I will not suffer.
    Live life to the full, make it as good as you can for yourself and others. That is the ultimate goal!

    Reply

  2. It's rather difficult to get on with things when there are so many interesting uploads to be watched, little by little.

    Reply

  3. Nice work. I appreciate the different views. Did you consider interviewing Donald Hoffman, who considers consciousness as fundamental? We can go on forever here.

    Reply

  4. Kuhn is so mired in the material.😣
    Regarding NDE (Near Death Experience), while he consults on it, he does not include veridical NDEs in which the experiencers relate information that they could not have known. Seeing or hearing things removed from their location which are verified gives significant evidence for the concept of consciousness being non local.
    Consciousness is not produced by brain activity, and death is merely a transition of consciousness.
    IANDS.org International Association for Near Death Studies is a great resource.

    Reply

  5. This is one field where philosophy can truly shine in all it's glory, can we disrupt death. There's not a single term or smallest event that should be overlooked when examining this phenomena, yet not many minds dedicated their life to that project. It's because we're hopeless right from a start. Nobody ever survived, there's nothing to tell what hadn't already been spoken about subject. What do we mean by death, it's something, like transition from animate to inanimate state, maybe we should start with a word.

    Reply

  6. Death is the cessation of "consciousness" and it could not be otherwise . If you were hypothetically to take away the physical and material Brain from "consciousness" you will be left with absolutely nothing and no "consciousness" left to contemplate ! No dead human being has ever come back from Biological Death or shown any signs of "consciousness" once the necrosis process has began and the Brain cells have began to break down , and that is a fact of nature . However in order to overcome this fear of death in human beings , Religions have created abstractions : "Afterlife" and "Reincarnation" .

    Reply

  7. There's a way out, death is a natural process, so it could be controlled by artificial constructs, at least to some extend. Edgar Alan Poe comes to mind immediately when i read about life inside a machine, that story when doctor mesmerized patient so he couldn't realize his already gone. It would be possible to devise a machine that could keep brain alive practically forever, by artificially regenerating tissue without end. Brain could be connected to robots, drones or any other kind of machine, replacing sense of body with impulses from artificial devices. In time machines could became organic, so brain could live inside an organic blob again after thousands of years of machine evolution. It's all possible and much more, but who exactly want to live forever, what will remain of a person might be exactly what must vanish from this world with his biological death. Let me put it this way, maybe we could remain alive forever, but only if we stay in a form of 3 month old baby.

    Reply

  8. I’m skeptical of NDEs, but I’ve often heard end of life phenomena is simply the body performing a chemical dump to ease the mind. The glowing light, the relaxing feeling, seeing loved ones, etc. etc. What I have a hard time grasping is explaining that from an evolutionary perspective. You have a biological function aiding in death, not promoting survival. How could that ever be passed along? I have no doubt the chemical dump is real, but it almost seems if it would need to be programmed to ever get there.

    Reply

  9. An "afterlife" no more requires a "god" than graduating from high school or college requires one. What an absurd notion. From the Buddhist perspective, invoking the concept of rebirth (a possibility you left out in your count at the end), This IS the afterlife. Right now. Our consciousness is already in its next life from the continuation of the previous consciousness/es. The first guest pointed toward this notion in saying that there is no permanent stable "self" that persists over time, which is easy enough to demonstrate logically and empirically. People change, and no one on earth has the same "self" they had 10 minutes ago, let alone when they were 4, 5, 10 or whatever. "Consciousness is a verb, not a noun," and it has persisted so far over human history. The problem is that we identify with our subjective sense of consciousness as a separate "me" or "self" instead of understanding the actual (impersonal) nature and movement of consciousness, in which we, in effect, are just the series (or at any given time, the collective) of mechanisms that are serving to perpetuate it.

    It's likewise absurd to claim an NDE involves a consciousness "remaining" – he unwittingly contradicts himself by first stating that the brain function is flatlined, then claims the consciousness has "remained." No. The consciousness is not remaining, only the mechanism(s) for allowing consciousness are remaining, and in his example, apparently still salvageable. If they weren't salvageable, then consciousness wouldn't have returned at all, because it's not hanging out in some "afterlife" waiting for the brain to start working again so it can come back, lol. It's gone at that point, similar to if a person has no consciousness under anaesthesia and they die (brain death) on the operating table. Consciousness wasn't "waiting" in some antechamber to rush back in to the revived mechanism. No. The mechanism is revived, and then consciousness returns as a function of the mechanism. Because what if the brain were partially damaged during the operation, say parts of the frontal lobes or thinking cortex, etc.? Then we would be reduced to saying that the mind wasn't functioning properly because the "full consciousness" (or whatever we'd call what it was prior to the operation) was constrained by the damage. And that is too backward to even take seriously! lol

    Reply

  10. Viagra is, in a sense, one of those forever pills…. It certainly helps with proliferation of birth and life. Of course, the same can be said for any medication that keeps us alive and healthy. Good looks and smart behavior, help with proliferation process too. It is interesting to hear discussions about the continuation of consciousness, or not… Unfortunately, one must die to find the real truth…. or not.

    Reply

  11. Jullian Baggini is an idiot who just wants to keep defining "time" for us over and over. Every subatomic particle is different from moment to moment. That doesn't mean it is a different particle. There is a continuity to things that transcends time. Jullian Baggini probably thinks he could stand in front of Achille's arrow and not be pierced.

    Reply

  12. (12:36) Dr. Kuhn: "… a very stupid progenitor …". OMGoodness, I laughed! I've never heard Dr. Kuhn use such strong words.

    Reply

  13. Irreducible Mind, Bruce Greyson et al. Pim Von Lommel's essential thesis of non-local consciousness.

    Reply

  14. Too bad Robert Kuhn is an apologist for the communist government of China….if not for that, I would have a lot of respect for him

    Reply

  15. About consciousness, and the loss of it at death, I ask the question … would the universe, would reality, mother nature, god, etc. … be so wasteful as to lose consciousness? Also, nothing is destroyed, as mentioned, its only change that occurs, so the perhaps unanswerable is what change occurs after physical body death? Could consciousness and the organization involved in it, somehow connected at some level of the universe such that it simply slips to some other domain?

    Reply

  16. I think the ultimate truth is nearly impossible to swallow. We are already dead. This is the afterlife. You just don't know who you really are.

    Reply

  17. I hate the idea of forever. I would hate that. What about all those people with mental issues, like my son and my other son with autism. I hate, utterly despise the idea of anyone with mental deficiencies or illnesses going on forever. Have you people who want this so much to happen ever thought of others or are you too selfish to see how painful that could be to others who are not as mentally capable or coherent as you.

    Reply

  18. Why does it need to be ta non-biological substrate. Why not use a biological unit. It seems to me, that it would make things a lot easier and better. How about an infant clone that has not achieved consciousness.

    Reply

  19. Which medium would be able to support "consciousness" activity once the physical and material Brain has stopped working ? You would need an alternative available nearby energy source from where "consciousness" could draw some form of energy after the heart stops and the flow of oxygen-rich blood to the brain also stops . The "consciousness" after physical death is not something that is kept in suspended animation waiting to be plucked out of thin air by another passing medium . You would need to have an alternative medium , like a computer hard drive , prior physical death occurred ready to host the deceased person "consciousness" and upload it before physical death occurs , I think .

    Reply

  20. How about this..?
    At the moment one dies, whatever the bit of the memory remaining gets converted into the Higgs boson. Some bad lucky guy’s Higgs boson dissipate into the thin air. while some lucky guy’s Higgs boson, at the right time and place get absorbed into a new embryo.
    So, don’t discount what is on your mind at the moment you take your last breath.

    Reply

  21. I think it very interesting to ask what is the now moment, the present moment. Is there such thing as an absolute now in the universe without awarness. Present moment is only subjective, if so can i claim than, someone who is dead for me at this moment could be alive in his or her now moment. can we say that consciousness not only exists simultaneously in different places but in different times as well. Had i waited longer to come into existence than someone who has born 20, 000 years ago, no. We came into existence at the same time.

    Reply

  22. If you count the advance of time, at what speed, or acceleration ?, would you go to the end of eternity opposite to the point where you emerged…

    But if you forget the arrow between the past and the tomorrow, in a today where you have, in obvious authority, at the same time, what you like from both sides without the way of the course, according to your choice, you convert in your own order what they would say entropy, but it is only alphabet, not implying errors, of reality. That would be living forever, at ease, right?

    Pdta .: The one who risks, from so much love for life, taking a pill at any cost to survive, usually humiliates his ego and asks God, even if he does not know about it, as something he wants, recognizing that he cannot justify the wish…

    Reply

  23. 'EXCELLENT' …. Difficult subject but made simple & plain with beautiful insights by all the speakers……. may be because of limitation of length of video post, views of the Eastern traditions including Vedantic especially views of Dr. Deepak Chopra not included ( though there is already similar interesting & beautiful CTT video post of year 2015 of Dr Deepak Chopra on same subject but since now 5 yrs. have passed, both in their own different approach , Dr. Robert & Dr Deepak both being energetic, lot of enthusiasm, passion, with full of insight & foresight , & quest for TRUTH, may have evolved some more fresh/ new , interesting & fruitful insight/ outcome/ideas/views …..and may be there some where convergent of view points of two Giants…….. refer to video post CTT episodes 1804 (consciousness) & episode no.1905 ( strong emergence ) …….. & moreover it's very interesting to view their always highly charged, emotional & volatile conversation…… thanks 🙏.

    Reply

  24. The trans humanist guy makes no sense. Who cares if your dna continues. It’s not YOU!

    Reply

  25. I think just like experience of life is different for different individuals, death also is not same for everyone. We all have different after-death fates depending upon our dispositions & personality types:

    1)some of us may have a continuity of consciousness after death by evolving in a spiritual world,
    2)some get reincarnated back on this earth in another body,
    3)and some may just vanish after brain death!

    In other words, afterlife is a qualification, not a natural right!

    Reply

  26. If we have a soul. So would very animal on the planet. We are not a special case.
    Skeptical faith ? What the hell ! Jesus Christ, that's hilarious !!! The two words that are complete opposites of each other.
    Our brains are one of a kind, experience built platforms. No computer can ever replicate that level of self awareness.

    Reply

  27. Hi, guys! I have a great topic for you! The pattern of Magnetic field. Where it comes from and how do we know it looks like that? The thing is, there is a book that claims the textbooks are false. And in that book there is offered an alternative pattern and Mechanics of this field. The book claims that there is a direct proof for all of those claims… the book is this – https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0851MWT7S/ref=cm_sw_r_wa_apa_i_.EXDEbQGRKXSN
    If you go to Amazon and enter 'george warehouseman', it will lead you to that book. If you chose 'look inside' at the top of the book, it will lead you to few images where the patterns of Magnetic field are depicted during Attraction and repulsion. Very interesting topic. Could be the next big breakthrough in science…

    Reply

  28. Nothing will ever duplicate first-person continuity of inner awareness other than first-person continuity of inner awareness

    Reply

  29. Theologians are specialized philosophers. Both dismiss the burden of proof and can be taken with a grain of salt.

    Reply

  30. The reason consciousness seems magical is because the brain is an absolute technical marvel of biology. Trillions of connections with billions of neurons shaped by evolution allows a rich and deep simulation (interpretation) of reality in which we can tell our own stories and have inner worlds of thought and experience. Our stories seem so real to us because there is no clear distinction between the neuronal activity from external senses vs. our internal recursive or reflective neuronal activity…i.e. dreams for example.

    Reply

  31. ….looking at immortal consciousness from a purely naturalistic lens is why ancient deities all seem cruel in their treatment of humanity. An immortal human will become cruel simply because the pains and time of living lose value, "oh, i have time, this will pass." what does human life mean when its mortality is excised from the equation?

    Reply

  32. Death is the equalization of mankind, there's no other way to escape the locked time for each individual, it serves only the history of the almighty creator with the thousand eyes. The script of the last man standing on earth's surface, will be rewarded with everlasting life.

    Reply

  33. Lots of bullshit comments from idiots who fuck around with words pretending they know something they don't.

    Reply

  34. So religion offers only death after life which is death as religion doesn't control the afterlife or do they? What kind of demonic religion worships death as it is a program of death to the mind to self destruct!

    Reply

  35. I don't think that Sting looking character has done a lot of deep thinking about the nature of consciousness. Perhaps he's what is known as an "NPC".

    Reply

  36. The truth is that you have an eternal soul, so there was existence both BEFORE and AFTER your short material life on earth. It was recently shown on youtube a visualization of the Akashic Record of a human life which I found interesting, it starts the explanation at https://youtu.be/IJhgZBn-LHg?t=1012 and gives a snapshot of a human Akashic Record at

    https://youtu.be/IJhgZBn-LHg?t=1190. That short fragment of spinning wave is you, your existence as a human. We are all headed for something called The Great Attractor…. could that be God?

    The sensual bombardment we experience in the material world causes us to be blinded to the incredibly short span of a human life, when compared to the cosmos. It is also quite meaningless. When we are young we think 100 years is an eternity of time, and we just defer thoughts of death while we pursue pleasure. As we get older, we begin to take account of our mortality and then the question of your eternal soul fragment becomes paramount over pleasure. The life of a human is so short compared to cosmic time, that only the foolhardy believe that it is our main existence thru eternity. We are more than just a brief flash of consciousness between 2 dark eternities.
    Death allows you to chose where your next incarnation will be, so death should be welcomed, it is your chance to leave the miseries of earth. If you want to pursue transcendence I recommend https://krishna.org/beyond-birth-and-death-1972-edition-pdf-download/

    Reply

  37. Most people who undergo full anesthetic surgery are unconscious. They don't "go" anywhere; they're not in a time out room reading a magazine. They don't exist as far as they're concerned. I'm not convinced that if you die and your brain receives no oxygen you remain conscious. If you're not conscious when you're having surgery, you're not conscious when your heart stops. And if you are, that raises some significant terror about being buried or cremated.

    Reply

  38. You're going through the same philosophical struggles that all the great thinkers have gone through — wrestling with how a conscious mind with a lineage of personal experiences and individual character can just "vanish". This anguish is at the heart of the very earliest death rituals. It is a part of the grief process that even animals experience — loss of loved ones, and wondering where they went, and where we shall go. It's a statement about our plight that 10s or perhaps 100s of thousands of years later we're still no closer to coming to a definitive answer. No shortage of beliefs of course, but no undeniable factual answer. Other than… "we're gone". A slap in the face to human dignity.

    Reply

  39. That guy is a philosopher of mind? Really? Even I'll make a better philosopher than him. So obvious holes in his arguments and close mindedness.

    Reply

  40. 量子力学が"救い"になるかもしれません。客観的(絶対的)に 時間は 流れません。外から宇宙を観ると静止しています。個人だけが 時間の流れを経験します。個人は自己の死を経験しません。外から宇宙を観ると、個人も地球も太陽も 宇宙に溶融(エンタングル)しており存在しません。

    Reply

  41. If humans have souls and live on after death then so might every creature on Earth. Imagine meeting the soul of last night’s dinner.

    Reply

  42. The "I" who was in the belly of my mamma can be seen as an alternative reality to the one I am experiencing after birth. So will the super-positioned spirit of one's self become aware of their spirit existence upon death. In short, we can't take the "I" out of I am. Your question about a 1000 years from now is a good one. Then what? Many, many spirits get involved in what is known as reincarnation, which is actually spirit influence unto the Earth, which, I feel, is mostly unloving.

    Reply

  43. What if dark matter exists as a reality that is built from our 3d reality as our reality originates super-positionally BUT it is a non- decadent reality? All things decay here but not there. Wouldn't this explain the exponential expanding universe? It also suggests that the dark reality is within the same universal construct that our reality is in. In other words, when we shed our human 3d reality, we are not leaving this universe, we're simply observing dark matter that all started in the 3d reality. What laws we'd be governed by, to me, is very interesting. I think many people find themselves in the awareness of dark matter and don't know wtf is going on. Like a baby doesn't know what's going on in this reality. Very similar.

    Reply

  44. Robert, if you want to know about the survival of consciousness beyond the death transition, ask an expert in the field. I'm president of the Afterlife Research and Education Institute. There are volumes of evidence that we live beyond the body. We're far beyond wondering about that. We're now focused on developing means of communicating. Go to afterlifeinstitute.org.

    Reply

  45. Upload humans into robots that can replicate and live without air water and food is the future of life forever

    Reply

  46. But science and religion and belief in the afterlife Are not opposing each other plenty of scientists are religious and science doesn’t prove there’s no afterlife they just say there is but they can’t prove anything

    Reply

  47. "No matter how persistent, Time is merely an illusion". Albert Einstein. Thus every moment is the same as any other moment, it is like a convergence of a spoked wheel to the axial center, they all meet there, like all events that enter a Black Hole, the events appear to circulate through time, being revolutionary , but as you remit from many dimensions of experience back to one core dimension , at the center , all views are gathered into one place to be seen all at once, from the absolute center of all that moves around the wheel .

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *