I always felt it was a force of energy that just returns to its natural source or somehow transforms,its kind of a cool thought lol,one thats better then just being
DEAAAAAAAD
lol
DEAAAAAAAD
lol
The brain is the experiencing structure. Without it's functioning, there is no consciousness.
I think that the energy that we are made of could continue to exist but our minds cease to be.
What we call consciousness is just a simplified name for a lot of chemical and electrical processes. The emerging definition of "death" is the irreversible degradation of synapses. That means that the chemical and electrical environment has broken down and these processes simply cannot take place any more.
In other words, the complete and permanent cessation of "conscious awareness" is, precisely, what death is. "What happens to the conscious awareness when we die," is that it ceases to exist.
It's human hubris to think there's something "special" about these particular blobs of matter which exempts us from the laws of nature that regulate the condition and behavior of all other blobs of matter.
We're smarter, but we're still just matter. Enjoy it while it lasts, but don't get carried away with yourself
We have electricity in our bodies. It is a very small charge and when we die that little charge dissipates into the air/groud/water and becomes part of the universe. No mind just a little charge to add to everything else once again. Won't hurt a bit and you might get a "charge" out of it.
It really depends on who you ask. Are you looking for a scientific, religious, spiritual, psychological answer???
Consciousness is information. When there is no information, there is no consciousness. We don't even have to die.
Yeah, it was awful. Let's cut through that with the knife of truth. Being dead is just like the time before you were born.
Intuition.
The mind body split
What is interesting to note in Dr. Blackmore's explanation is the mention of the separation of mind and brain. This in fact is the core of the argument. It is also the stumbling block over which any attempt to analyse consciousness falls. And at the core of these concepts and the argument is the fact that our viewpoint of matter and of physical existence is such that it cannot in its old form conceive of a brain mind separation.
However, despite this argument, people continue, whether due to an NDE, an out of body experience, dreams such as experienced by my wife Brenda, or other extensions of awareness beyond sensory impressions, to witness verifiable external events while apparently unable to do so.
Because of this Sam Parnia, clinical research fellow at the University of Southampton, and Peter Fenwick, consultant neuropsychiatrist at the University of London, argue that the evidence suggests a separation of mind and brain. They claim that the mind can live on when the brain is dead, suggesting that near death experiences can be retained in the mind and then refixed in the brain as it recovers so that they can be subsequently recalled. This is an interesting concept, but most people would not find it necessary to postulate such a separation between mind and brain to explain the events.
If you consider these two arguments I think you will see that while Susan Blackmore has a massive cultural and scientific backlog of evidence and viewpoints on her side, Sam Parnia and Peter Fenwick yet dare to put forward an argument that is weak in terms physiological science, because their evidence is so compelling. In confronting popular scientific opinion their argument falls down because it has no physiological proof. But Blackmore's argument falls down because it completely denies the evidence Parnia and Fenwick are looking at.
As was said earlier, this is an argument using words and concepts that are not adequate to really find a meeting point between evidence and established ideas of physics and neurology. However, the new physics in the form of quantum mechanics, along with new ideas about consciousness, might be offering us such a meeting point.
From the old viewpoints about the nature of the observable universe, especially as it arose from the mechanistic ideas of Newtonian physics, in which the universe was seen as a huge mechanical device, the basis of which was the atom, the only way in which awareness could exist when the brain was dead would be through a separation of mind from body. Part of this concept lies in seeing matter, the atom, as a sort of inert substance that is totally devoid of any awareness, and in no way influenced by mind or thoughts. The problem for thinkers using this concept of existence was that from the organisation of such atoms in the human body personal awareness arose. But how can awareness arise from something that itself is totally devoid of awareness, or does not have the potential of consciousness?