Is life after death a possibility?

[QED]

A sub-debate started up in this topic about the best arguments for atheism With respect to keeping that debate on-track I have continued this theme in a separate thread. It started when I asked the following:

"Do [you] think there is life after death harvey1? I don't. A big part of life for me is the history in my brain called memory. I know this is physical because when damaged by a stroke, I lost some of it. Our memories define us - they are there as the basis for the formulation of our current opinions. They give us our reference for how we feel right now -- are we happier or sadder, in more or less discomfort. Without the history of music you've appreciated in the past, you are unable to appreciate new music in the same genre (a real eye-opener for me, but it instantly explains why some people can become engrossed in certain genres that seem utterly outlandish to others -- each new small, deviation is acceptable in it's own way to the aficionado but the sum total creates an insurmountable edifice to anyone lacking the history of the aficionado).

SO when I die completely, my memories will too and thus I know that there will be no life after death for me."

As I understand it harvey1 presented the possibility of quantum teleportation as being one mechanism we might know of already as being potentially capable of transferring the vital information that makes up a "me". While this might just possibly permit the transfer of certain states of memory it led me to wonder the following:

if your brain is damaged at some stage in life (maybe 10 years before your death, maybe 10 minutes) then at what point is all the vital information transferred?

Well, I have no way of knowing that. However, if I can offer a speculation, I would say that "you" are the final state of "you" at the moment of death, and at that point you are "resurrected" at Measurement Day (or Judgement Day) and then you are healed of whatever infirmities that are present, perhaps with a transformed "body." I'm only speculating of course.

I think this answer reveals an insurmountable problem with the concept of a desirable or meaningful afterlife: I have described how vital a role our memories play in defining our being. The destruction of neurons can map one-to-one with the destruction of information (memory) so "who we are" at a given time is contingent on our functional memory. Given that we can become re-defined through targeted damage means we can change -- maybe for the better, maybe for the worse. So which copy of us will reside in heaven? Our "final state" is likely to be one characterized by massive disruption (on both emotional and mechanical levels!) notice that previous back-ups" of us might well prove to be incompatible if we build a "new life" after such an accident.

Note that it helps to have the perspective of one who has "lost" part of his "soul" (as some would have it, others might more reasonably call it personality or identity) through mere mechanical means. I have no doubt that our defining qualities are bound to our physiology and this can change over time. No cutting and pasting that I can imagine could reconstruct the true essence of an individual.

[LillSnopp]

(1)No, it's not Henry I'm talking about - the two personalities I refer to are both worthy of a place in your heaven, neither has done sufficient wrong to merit anything else. They both represent living, thinking individuals like you and me, but unlike me, each has hopes of getting his just deserts in heaven. It's not a question of judgement, it's one that questions the notion of a continuation of our beings in another realm. If both personas make it to heaven we have a problem, (2)if only one makes it then what meaning has an afterlife for the unlucky person that didn't make it?

1. I like that movie. Nice to see Harrison in some different kind of pic for once.

2. None, they are to serve in Hell for eternity. What is it you missed QED? You think Christianity is some all loving religion? Read the Bible, and its perfectly clear that the jews are the chosen people, and really, the only chosen people. But later on, (NT), its tweaked a bit, and most likely written by some anti-Semitic guy. Believe and Bow for the Almighty God of Christianity, or Burn in Hell, its very easy, reminds of the Contemporary American Doctrine "Be a Christian Patriot and love your Country whatever it will do, or be marked as a Terrorist/Evil Guy, And whatever you do, Never go outside the borders to DragonLand".

[QED]

If both personas make it to heaven we have a problem, if only one makes it then what meaning has an afterlife for the unlucky person that didn't make it?

I just don't see the problem here if there is a judgement process by which people arrive at their final destination. What if humans are cryogenically frozen and brought to life again, are you suggesting that this is impossible for them to be healed of brain injury? If their past memories are restored who are they as individuals?

I think you've continued to miss my point (maybe because you are unfamiliar with wide range of effects that brain damage can have on its victims). The two personas in my example belong to a single human body. They might represent two totally separate halves of an individuals life. Each persona defines a conscious entity like every one else alive, with their own values, relationships and so on. But neither has any contact with the other. They exist as two different people at different times. The first person to die is the one who lives up until the event which causes irreversible brain damage. The second builds an entire new and quite possibly very different life after the accident and dies much later on.

Either of these individuals could be you or me, neither might want to give up their claim on their place in heaven. I'm trying to show how the neat little package of information that you assume can be teleported to safety is not so neatly defined after all.

[harvey1]

I think you've continued to miss my point (maybe because you are unfamiliar with wide range of effects that brain damage can have on its victims). The two personas in my example belong to a single human body. They might represent two totally separate halves of an individuals life. Each persona defines a conscious entity like every one else alive, with their own values, relationships and so on. But neither has any contact with the other. They exist as two different people at different times. The first person to die is the one who lives up until the event which causes irreversible brain damage. The second builds an entire new and quite possibly very different life after the accident and dies much later on. Either of these individuals could be you or me, neither might want to give up their claim on their place in heaven. I'm trying to show how the neat little package of information that you assume can be teleported to safety is not so neatly defined after all.

Oh, I see what you're saying. What I'm asking you to consider is the same man, instead of being resurrected, is cryogenically frozen at his demise. In 2505 scientists discover the lab in which his body was cryogenically frozen, immediately defrost them, and realize that the poor chap has brain damage since a number of years back. They quickly insert nanobots into his system, and within a shorttime the man wakes up with all memories intact of his life, including the memories prior to his brain damage as if it all happened an hour ago (aren't nanobots great, that is, until terrorists use them...).

So, are you saying that this situation is impossible? Are you saying that this man cannot become one person through the miracles of science?

[harvey1]

None, they are to serve in Hell for eternity. What is it you missed QED? You think Christianity is some all loving religion? Read the Bible, and its perfectly clear that the jews are the chosen people, and really, the only chosen people. But later on, (NT), its tweaked a bit, and most likely written by some anti-Semitic guy. Believe and Bow for the Almighty God of Christianity, or Burn in Hell, its very easy, reminds of the Contemporary American Doctrine "Be a Christian Patriot and love your Country whatever it will do, or be marked as a Terrorist/Evil Guy, And whatever you do, Never go outside the borders to DragonLand".

Why don't you make an argument rather than put forward red herring arguments that are just emotional appeals?

[QED]

What I'm asking you to consider is the same man, instead of being resurrected, is cryogenically frozen at his demise. In 2505 scientists discover the lab in which his body was cryogenically frozen, immediately defrost them, and realize that the poor chap has brain damage since a number of years back. They quickly insert nanobots into his system, and within a shorttime the man wakes up with all memories intact of his life, including the memories prior to his brain damage as if it all happened an hour ago (aren't nanobots great, that is, until terrorists use them...).

So, are you saying that this situation is impossible? Are you saying that this man cannot become one person through the miracles of science?

Yes it's impossible because the memories (and hence the personality) of the first half of life are wiped out by the mechanical damage within the brain. The cells that comprised the relevant neurons have long since been garbage cleaned.

But even if some sort of repair could be made consider the difficulties: Alex might have been in love with April, and after the accident, Bill (as he now likes to be called) divorces April and marries Betty. What will he be able to make of his feelings if ever the two personalities are fused? Imagine superimposing two different consciousnesses (!) within one person.

The reason we face these problems is that our personalities are defined in a mechanical way. Whether you like it or not there is a materialistic explanation behind what and who we are. Bizarre accidents have shown this time and time again. The frequency of strokes within the older members of the population has provided medical research with abundant data regarding the material functioning of the brain. Even if it were insisted that all that defines us resides in something called a soul, the problems of superimposition still remain. Even if you postulate two individuals being reconstructed to accept the two different personas you wind up in trouble if there are shared elements i.e. they both still love the same wife!

[harvey1]

But even if some sort of repair could be made consider the difficulties: Alex might have been in love with April, and after the accident, Bill (as he now likes to be called) divorces April and marries Betty. What will he be able to make of his feelings if ever the two personalities are fused? Imagine superimposing two different consciousnesses (!) within one person.

Hey, people have to cope with all sorts of conflicts, that's just another one that is probable as more cures become possible.

The reason we face these problems is that our personalities are defined in a mechanical way. Whether you like it or not there is a materialistic explanation behind what and who we are.

Can you provide the explanation, I certainly haven't read what it is?

Even if it were insisted that all that defines us resides in something called a soul, the problems of superimposition still remain. Even if you postulate two individuals being reconstructed to accept the two different personas you wind up in trouble if there are shared elements i.e. they both still love the same wife!

Again, I do not see this as a philosophical problem or scientific problem. It is a problem of the individual in coming to their full awareness. However, this is what I think the judgement is all about, coming to full awareness and making a final decision in what kind of world one chooses to live in as a result of the highest awareness that one can accept for themselves (such as what Tim Robbin's character did in Jacob's Ladder).

[QED]

But even if some sort of repair could be made consider the difficulties: Alex might have been in love with April, and after the accident, Bill (as he now likes to be called) divorces April and marries Betty. What will he be able to make of his feelings if ever the two personalities are fused? Imagine superimposing two different consciousnesses (!) within one person.

Hey, people have to cope with all sorts of conflicts, that's just another one that is probable as more cures become possible.

Well if you think this is surmountable, and I don't (because we're considering the meaning of a life in the hereafter, and I would suggest that you cherish your individuality to the point where life without it wouldn't be worth having) then I present you with the first, and more serious problem which is that the personality of the individual is lost with the irreversible destruction of neurons.

The reason we face these problems is that our personalities are defined in a mechanical way. Whether you like it or not there is a materialistic explanation behind what and who we are.

Can you provide the explanation, I certainly haven't read what it is?

Our personas aren't some intangible assemblage of information stored outside our brains. They rest within the structure of our brains. This is why brain damage can alter personality. A famous example is that of one Phineas Gage

Phineas Gage is probably the most famous patient to have survived severe damage to the brain. He is also the first patient from whom we learned something about the relation between personality and the function of the front parts of the brain

This learning has continued to developed a much deeper understanding of the importance of memory and it's relation to individuality. I can personally vouch for the significant and unexpected effects of much less severe damage than that suffered by Phineas. I already discussed how our values are informed by our experiences and experiences are largely represented by our memory. Lose that memory and your values are also subject to change.

When you declared "of course there is life after death" I was a little suspicious. It reminded me of the way people seem to swallow the whole christianity deal, 'hook line and sinker'. I just wanted to make sure that you had thought a little deeper about it than most. There are many other questions that could be asked (of course this is not what is expected from the faithful) and I would note that this 'most certain of things for all christians' comes in very close contact with medicine and science and as such might be a bit more accessible than most of the other supernatural issues.

However I must say that I have managed to detect a bit more of a hint of 'so what? Anything is possible when it comes to god' from you in this debate (not your words, of course but a classic fallback position for some). You, I'm sure, realise that this sort of answer cannot bring about a true satisfaction in ones convictions.

[LillSnopp]

Why don't you make an argument rather than put forward red herring arguments that are just emotional appeals?

No Harvey, i am making a Logical Appeal of what Christianity really is, however much you wish ti re-interpret it.

[harvey1]

No Harvey, i am making a Logical Appeal of what Christianity really is, however much you wish ti re-interpret it.

What exactly is the logical argument that you are making?? All I see is an emotional appeal. I could of course talk the same of atheism, but what's the purpose in doing that?

[harvey1]

Well if you think this is surmountable, and I don't (because we're considering the meaning of a life in the hereafter, and I would suggest that you cherish your individuality to the point where life without it wouldn't be worth having) then I present you with the first, and more serious problem which is that the personality of the individual is lost with the irreversible destruction of neurons.

That problem is not insurmountable in principle. As I said, we can easily visualize neurons becoming inactive due to brain damage where later they are re-activated by the miracles of science. In such a scenario, the individual would have no choice but to make sense of all of their old memories.

Our personas aren't some intangible assemblage of information stored outside our brains. They rest within the structure of our brains. This is why brain damage can alter personality.... Lose that memory and your values are also subject to change.

But regain that memory, and our values are also subject to reaccessing those values in light of both lifetime experiences (i.e., pre-incident and post-incident).

When you declared "of course there is life after death" I was a little suspicious. It reminded me of the way people seem to swallow the whole christianity deal, 'hook line and sinker'. I just wanted to make sure that you had thought a little deeper about it than most... However I must say that I have managed to detect a bit more of a hint of 'so what? Anything is possible when it comes to god' from you in this debate (not your words, of course but a classic fallback position for some). You, I'm sure, realise that this sort of answer cannot bring about a true satisfaction in ones convictions.

QED, the question isn't whether I'm justified in believing in an afterlife based on the evidence available. The question is whether an afterlife is possible in principle. That's a very different issue. In other words, you are saying that there is enough evidence to say that an afterlife is not possible in principle, and it is you who must provide insurmountable evidence to say that it is not possible. I don't think you've brought forth that kind of evidence.

Btw, this is one of my petpeeves with atheism. It is always the theist who is blamed for saying the universe must be such and such, but it seems most arguments of this sort come from the atheist (e.g., God cannot exist because of good and evil, or God cannot exist because of a quantum wavefunction, etc., etc.). When you confront the atheist asking for proof that their position really does rule out a position in principle, they are dumbfounded that you've asked them for proof of this sort. However, it is the atheist making the strong claim in these instances.