What Happens to Our Energy When We Die?

Hello all. I am the friend of PHAT Mommy who had the conversation with her regarding where “energy” goes when you die. She explained the law of conservation of matter very precisely, and I agree that’s what happens to our body when we die. The energy of consciousness (using the examples of memories and self-awareness, etc) that we also discussed more appropirately falls into the realm of the energy I was speaking of. For those of you who will maintain that the “soul” exists, this would also fall into that category. I believe I’ve heard it refered to as dualism. In short, one can (possibly, I always add a caviat) maintain that the mind and the brain are acually different entities. Surely one can maintain that the body and soul are different entities. What is the mind? What does it do? Where does the memory of your name actually reside in your brain…or is it in your mind… that your brain also has access to? Does it have to be confied to be brain? Do other cells have a “semi-consciousness” when they automatically perform operations required for maintaing homeostasis without obeying commands of the brain? All of this requires energy. So specifically (or collectively) where does the energy of the mind go when you die? If there is another life force such as a soul, and presuming there is no heaven or hell…what happens to it when you die? Do animals eat it? Is it just absorbed by the earth? Does it float into space and become part of a “universal collective consciousness?” Good questions all…what say you?

I’d suggest that saying “I am typically a very ‘scientific’ person” is like saying “I am typically a law-abiding person”. You don’t get credit for the murders you didn’t commit if you indulge in a little robbery now and then, nor is your acceptance of gravitational laws impressive if you allow some aspects of your life to be guided by anecdotally supported “feelings”.

NJ, when you say “Surely one can maintain that the body and soul [or brain and mind, as you state earlier] are different entities”, I’d ask “Can one maintain it in any way supported by public observation?” Brain and mind are two ways of looking at the same thing, but there is no latter without the former.

NJ, contrary to your claim, I think most (or more likely all) neuroscientists would agree that thoughts “come from” the brain. Just as they would agree that internal experiences such as hunger and pain “come from” the brain. There is no evidence of thoughts (or pain or hunger) without a brain, and we can trigger internal experiences of thought, pain, thirst, hunger, etc. by electrically or chemically stimulating the brain. Sure, what we mean when we talk of the experience of “pain” is not precisely the same thing as the firing of pain receptors (we’re describing the internal experience caused by such firings), but there’s no evidence that the energy involved in experiencing pain is any more than the energy involved in firing those receptors. You speak of the “energy of consciousness” as if you knew it to be energy separate from (or in addition to) the energy of brain activity. On what grounds do you make this assumption? And if you believe this “energy” is somehow different from the energy we can identify “publicly”, why do you assume it holds to the same laws of conservation as observable, measurable energy? I don’t think the physicists who discovered the law of conservation of energy ever claimed it applied to mystical, fantastical, or undetectable “energies” or any internal experience that anyone chose to label as an “energy”. Maybe this mysterious “energy” of which you speak does simply disappear when the brain dies.

In common parlance, we typically do mean different things by the terms “mind” and “brain”. “Mind” generally refers to our internal thoughts and experiences and “brain” to the physical organ located in our skulls. But there is no experience of mind without a brain. When the brain dies, so do consciousness and thoughts, along with other internal experiences such as pain, thirst, and hunger.

I’d just like to point out two things that NJ is doing. First, there’s the technique of trading in ambiguity. When Shannon says that upon death, energy dissipates through the typical means (worms et al.), NJ says No, it’s not _that_ sort of energy, but when asked why the conservation principle applies to “consciousness energy”, NJ returns to it being a legitimate, detectable energy, behaving like the other energies we know and love. And he insists it’s detectable, and I wholeheartedly agree!, although I’d love to know if it was detected somewhere else besides a brain. An elbow, perhaps? Or a toaster?

The other is technique he’s employing is what I’d call an intellectual rope-a-dope, asking trixie to provide cites for what is common knowledge, which could be a worthwhile endeavor if NJ showed any evidence that those cites would prove convincing to him. Lacking that, it’s just a technique to exhaust an interlocutor. I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out why someone suffering from, say, dementia, psychosis, depression, or other thought-related disorder would pursue a course of treatment designed to affect the chemistry of the brain, instead of the kidneys or the colon.

These are the techniques (along with the classic “uncertainty is a key part of science”) of someone not using the tools of logic and reason to develop and test a theory, but to _insulate_ their pet theory from scrutiny. If anyone out there finds NJ’s line partially convincing, I request that you explain what it is that’s convincing about it, and I’d be happy to follow up. However, I suspect that the wish that there’s something to look forward to after death is the only thing that motivates anybody to put any stock in a theory like dualism. Just the standard fear of mortality stripped of religious raiment and dressed up like science.

Lance,

I got an email of your last post, but I don’t see it here on the website. Anyway…when Shannon gave the example of worms eating your body, that is an example of the law of conservation of MATTER not ENERGY. As for conscious energy, I’m not saying that the brain is not involved AT ALL in providing an experience of consciousness, but don’t get confused w/ the brain responding to sense organ stimuli and presenting “decoded” information with conscious energy. For example, the brain interprets data from the optic nerve, decodes it into neurons, flips is right-side up and presents you with a close representation of the data that it was given. However, you are the one who decides what it is that you see. All the other sense organs work the same. This firing of axons is not the energy I’m speaking of but is also obviously detectable. Similarly however, there are thought to be large groups of “unspecified neurons” distributed in the brain which do not function as others do. These are thought to interact with the mind to provide consciousness.

Separately…I take exception to some of the accusations you have made about me.

This topic touches (in part) on aspects of existence and consciousness that have only recently been explored scientifically (other aspects of this topic have been studied for decades, including quantum physics). Because of this, there is a built-in level of ambiguity. Don’t however assert that I (or anyone speaking about this) is being purposefully ambiguous.

I also take exception to you thinking it is inappropriate for me to ask Trixie or yourself to provide cites of where you get information. You say this is common knowledge? Hardly. I however was asked to provide information on my cites so Trixie could understand where I come up w/ my “assumptions.” So is it fair for me to do the same? I think so.

Lastly, I take great exception to your statement that I do not use logic to support my thoughts. I do not (always) develop my opinions from what you call common knowledge…especially something that requires as much thought as this topic. I think that is a perfect example of someone not using logic and rather depending on what may be incorrect information. Apparently, this has been quite a topic for you and the circle/family you are in as you have amassed all of this “common knowledge.”

Since for me it is not so common, I rely on people I consider to be much more educated than myself who I think are qualified to comment on such things to help me form my opinions. These people include but are not limited to:

Nobel Prize winner and physicist – David Gross
Mathematical physicist Roger Penrose (Oxford University)
Sue Greenfield – Professor of pharmacology (Oxford University)
Brian Greene – world famous physicist, Nobel Prize winner and author
Michio Kaku – world famous physicist, author, professor of theoretical physics (City of NY University)

Are you contending that these people, who have achieved so much, have done so without employing logic and scientific methods??? Perhaps you just do not believe in science? If so, that is fine. Just let me know so I have a better understanding of where you’re coming from.

I look forward to hearing from you (and others) again. I would also urge more people to conduct their own research and form their own conclusions more often. You might be surprised how often you then disagree with what you once thought was “common knowledge.”

Scientific discovery is not static. What we thought we knew, we sometimes no longer believe based on new information (such as knowing earthquakes do not happen because we’ve angered the god of the earth). Until a couple decades ago all scientists were sure that the atom was the smallest piece of matter in the universe. We now know this is not true. I guess some people are unwilling to modify their perceptions based on new information or are incapable of taking emerging information and extrapolating it to a LOGICAL conclusion.

Once again I think it’s worth stating that I NEVER try to change someones opinion about any topic. However, if my opinion is in contrast with theirs, I vehemently try to understand and accept that there may be another valid opinion out there that I just don’t happen to subscribe to (as long as the other opinion is supported by something other than what is deemed as “common knowledge”)…and would also ask the same of them. Since I do not know if a conversaiton of this magnitude can ever achieve such an end in this particular forum, this may be my last post on the topic.

Took a screengrab of something I thought might be relevant, I dunno…

http://www.twoknowitalls.com/wordpress/misc/yahoograb.jpg

:-)

NJ, the question (and explanation) posed by Shannon at the start of this thread is far simpler than you seem to recognize. Conservation of matter and energy are not “completely different” as you claim, which is why modern science no longer identifies separate laws of conservation for them. Since Einstein’s discovery that E=mc^2, there’s just one law: the law of conservation of mass-energy (which I’ve also seen written as the “conservation of matter and energy”). Matter and energy are not distinct; they are the same basic stuff packaged in different forms. Conversions of one type of matter into another are always accompanied by the conversion of one form of energy into another. The energy associated with our bodies is chemical energy (as also in our food, batteries, and gasoline) and that energy transforms when the matter with which it’s associated transforms. There’s as much mystery about what happens to “our energy” when our bodies die as there is about what happens to gasoline’s energy when we burn it, or a carrot’s energy when we digest it, or a mouse’s energy when it decomposes.

Burn, digest, or decompose our bodies and you’ll transform not only our matter (which was once organized to create, among other things, muscles, bones, brains, and our internal experiences such as hunger, pain, and consciousness), but also our energy — from chemical energy to other forms of energy such as heat, light, or to chemical energy stored in somebody else’s body, such as the insects and bacteria to which Shannon alluded. So upon death, as Shannon already explained, the matter and energy associated with our bodies transform into other forms of matter and energy, ones that are no longer organized in a way that create muscles, bones, brains, and internal experiences of hunger, pain, and consciousness. There is no “mystery of the missing energy” to solve here, though you seem bent on creating one.

Dark energy and dark matter are postulations devised by physicists who discovered that when dealing with very large bodies (like galaxies and universes), they couldn’t crunch the numbers predicted by general relativity (and to be fair, there are some physicists who believe that the correct solution to this problem is more likely to be a modification of general relativity when applied to very large bodies rather than an acceptance of as-yet undetected “dark energy & matter”). Regardless, these physicists are starting out with observations and measurements of cosmic bodies and are trying to devise a solution to an apparent contradiction. The jury is still out. But nobody has “measured” dark energy; nobody has even detected it. They’ve merely calculated how much of it would have to exist in order for their equation to balance.

Your theorizing “conscious energy” is not analogous to this approach. There is no apparent contradiction in need of explanation, no specific known energy equation for running a human consciousness that you can’t balance upon measuring the energy consumed by our brains. Your internal experience of “selfhood” cannot masquerade as a valid “measurement” of some otherwise undetected external energy acting upon your brain. No more than your internal experience of hunger or blueness (which one could argue aren’t precisely the same phenomena as your nervous system’s responses to an empty stomach or to light with a wavelength of 475 nm hitting your eye, but which are different ways of looking at precisely these responses) can be said to be a measurement of some external “hunger energy” or “blueness energy” acting upon (or interacting with) your brain to create your internal experiences. There’s no reason to postulate “conscious energy” apart from the energy within a brain. As far as all our evidence suggests (including the research you cite which apparently has helped to pinpoint the specific brain regions involved in creating the internal experience of self), consciousness and “selfness” are the internal experiences that arise from specific metabolic processes in the brain (which are powered by the energy we get from our food), just as hunger and blueness are the internal experiences that arise from other specific brain processes powered by such energy. Mess with these brain processes or regions (or transform the matter and energy associated with your brain), and your mind will be altered or in extreme cases will cease to be.

As Lance wrote before, “mind” and “brain” are just two ways of looking at the same thing. As there is no evidence of mind, — no experience of consciousness — without a complex, working brain, there is no reason to hypothesize that something other than brain processes power the internal experience of mind and self. You’ve provided no compelling evidence that this thing you call “conscious energy” exists and (in contrast to the physicists who posit the existence of “dark energy”) no compelling reason why anyone would even need to posit its existence. Nice as cognitive behavior therapy is, its success is not evidence for the existence of brain-independent “conscious energy”. That certain areas of the incredibly complex and inter-woven human brain can be prompted with instruction and exercised with practice to effect change in parts of itself is hardly startling and in need of an explanation that includes energy sources external to the human body.

And sure, I’ll agree that “no experiment has proven that the mind as separate entity from the brain does not exist”.  Nor has any study proven that Santa Claus, unicorns, genies, or gremlins do not exist.  So I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s rational for me to grant your non-negated theory the same cognitive status I grant each of these non-negated theories. I consider your claim, along with any of the other infinite non-negated claims that have been or could be made, all equally “viable” in the court of rational inquiry.

NJ, you continue to misrepresent my positions, so I suspect you simply misunderstand them. First to clarify a main point you’ve misunderstood: I haven’t claimed that one’s experience of mind does not exist, only that it’s the same thing as the brain. So your attempt to discredit my position by making a parallel argument regarding the “existence” of vision, hunger, blueness, etc. is not valid. My claim is that all available evidence leads to the conclusion that consciousness (as well as all the other internal experiences you mention) is merely a different way of looking at processes of a brain. They all exist, but there’s no evidence that any of them exist apart from a brain.

As for science and evidence: first, I’ve never suggested that the hypothesis that brain and mind are the same (or, more specifically, that thoughts come from the brain) isn’t falsifiable. You simply haven’t falsified it (nor has anyone else). Second, I’m not the one claiming the existence of something for which I can provide no sensory evidence; you are. The onus of proof is on you, not me. I’m riding on a very well-supported (non-falsified) null hypothesis, while you’re grasping for any signs that your alternate hypothesis is true and are coming up empty again and again. All the evidence reason requires to refute your claim is nicely summed up in what you’ve deemed #3 of my argument (i.e., that no evidence of mind exists without a brain). This is a valid and complete refutation of your hypothesis. It is you who require more evidence in order to support your claim that conscious energy exists apart from a brain. If this principle of the scientific method is not obvious to you when applied to your own theory, consider another alternate hypothesis that I presume you have rejected: Santa Claus magically stops time each Christmas at midnight and travels around the world on a sleigh drawn by flying reindeer to deliver presents to children across the globe. What evidence can you provide me that this hypothesis is not true? Do you have any more evidence than I’ve provided that there is no such thing as brain-independent consciousness? All you can say in defense of your conclusion that Santa does not exist is that there’s no evidence that Santa exists. And in the court of scientific inquiry, that’s reason enough to reject the Santa hypothesis.

Good science is not done willy-nilly. Postulating an idea you happen to like (but for which you have no evidence) and then claiming it’s a scientifically valid position because science hasn’t disproved it is not an approach compatible with rational inquiry. This is the stuff of faith and religion, not science, and such an approach is not responsible for scientific advancement. Those who discovered that the Earth is spherical and that the atom is not the smallest particle of matter did so by starting with observations, not wishes. You seem to have missed my point about your hypothesis lacking a foundation in an “apparent contradiction in need of explanation”. I was alluding to an apparent contradiction in evidence (i.e., scientific observations), not about a conflict of opinion. People disagree about all sorts of things… usually it simply turns out that some are wrong and some are right. Disagreements (even among scientists) about what’s true don’t constitute a reason for postulating alternate hypotheses. Observations do, and you have offered no compelling observations that would suggest a reason to postulate the existence of brain-independent conscious energy. You simply seem to like the idea and want to believe it. By clinging to your chosen theory in the absence of evidence for it, you are no more truth-seeking than is a child who clings to a belief in Santa, imagining all the ways in which Santa’s magic *might* work and demanding that somebody prove it couldn’t be, while all the time closing his mind to the dearth of evidence for any such magic.

Trixie,

I understand your position perfectly.

What part of the brain is responsibile for self-awareness and consciousness? Which part is responsible for one’s sense of morality? After all…if the brain is solely responsible for these things, shouldn’t we be able to say “look, there it is.” As for “sensory evidence”…are you saying that all that is to be “sensed” can be done with our sensory organs? I hope not…but you are entitled to your opinion. The fact is that what we see, hear and ultimately experience as sensory input from the environment is a mere fraction of what is truly out there. It is just how we have evolved. Additionally, our brain has adapted itself to interpret these inputs to provide a “meaningful abstraction” of our surrounding so that we may try to comprehend it. You keep referencing external stimuli (or internal stimuli such as hunger with a physical component) and refuse to acknowledge that internal experiences such as thought (not perception) and a sense of existence or self may be due to something other than the brain. Once again, science has studied this very thing for decades and has not formed a final conclusion yet. Why is it that you have then? As for evidence I’ve provided…I have. You just refuse to acknowledge it. I’ve even referenced scientific studies, nobel prize winners, printed works, etc. The bottom line is that you have already decided that no evidence will be satisfactory for you, even though science has not been able to make a clear determination. It is your wish that your view be upheld because it makes sense to you and yet you cannot produce any evidence to support it. It is not solely up to me to provide evidence to my logic. Are you above such a process? If science exists to prove your point why can you not provide any?

As for your comment on “good science”…I will once again reference quantum physics. I know this not a topic that you are very familiar with yet you dismiss it as though you were an expert with some knowledge that all other quantum physicists seem to have absurdly overlooked. By the way…quantum physics has absolutely nothing to do with faith or religion. Do I really need to address Santa Claus? How about this…the fact that not everyone celebrates Christmas combined with differing time zones and the ability to travel at speeds approaching the speed of light? That is not to say I believe in Santa Claus, but I thought it would be fun to debate your absurd mocking of any hypothesis that threatens your “committment to a particular reality.”

What observation did someone make about the atom to postulate that it wasn’t the smallest particle that was indivisible? Wasn’t it a scientific fact that it was? Why would anyone ever contradict a scientific fact?

My conclusion is that if someone were to isolate the energy of consciousness and “prove” that it existed apart from the measureable chemical energy of the brain, you would call it witchcraft or liken it to “intellectual double-speak.” I also find it interesting that you have lached onto particular points that I’ve made that you feel you have a “cohesive” argument against, while you dismiss factual evidence I’ve presented altogether by not responding to it (because there isn’t one…without sounding ridiculous) or just simply not accept it as evidence. How convenient.

I’m very happy that persons such as Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and (your favorite) Einstein and Hawking did not cave in when people, even the whole of the then established scientific community, dismissed their proposals as lunacy, heracy, and unscientific. Many of their “observations” were considered made up, not scientific or just missing. Some of their theories were not based on observations, but speculation based on available data. Some of them were only proven decades (or longer) later, and then supplanted by more comprehensive theories. (By the way…that is also a form of proposing a scientific hypothesis) I am not the only person who believes this, I merely have adapted my thinking to available evidence that you cannot accept. I consider myself in great company. Again, this is how science has progressed for millennia. I will not apologize that it does not meet your particular “standard of proof” in order to be considered possible.

Shannon, I think you’ve already anticipated my answer to your question. No, there have been no scientific observations of ghosts, gods, psychic ability, etc. (that is, observations demonstrated under controlled conditions and replicated). And while universities have sometimes funded research into the so-called paranormal, such research has discovered nothing paranormal, and most (if not all) of such research has long been shut down for lack of success. Had any of these projects been successful, they would have reaped James Randi’s million-dollar reward and most certainly would have won a Nobel prize. To what “anecdotal observation” that has “led to major scientific discovery” are you referring? Certainly only anecdotes that have been subsequently demonstrated true under controlled conditions and replicated again and again (these are the only conditions under which any idea could qualify as scientific discovery). And most (if not all) of such stories are not the stuff of the subjective, internal “experiences” to which you refer (as in Galileo and Newton just had “feelings” that subsequently turned out to be right), but are simply stories of great thinkers synthesizing real, objective observations into new theories which explained the observations better than the current ones.

NJ, I think you’re moving away from civilized discourse on this topic. You’re doing little more at this point than throwing accusations and claiming that I am ignorant of topics I haven’t even discussed with you (such as quantum physics), while demanding flatly that you understand my position perfectly while continuing to misrepresent it by attacking strawmen instead of my actual claims. If someone were to succeed at demonstrating consciousness apart from a brain in a controlled setting, I most certainly would not call it “witchcraft”. I’d call it amazing and I’d be excited to see what discoveries and technologies might follow. But nobody has done this (a point which you strangely seem to consider irrelevant to my dismissal of your hypothesis) and there’s no compelling reason to suspect that anyone will. I’m not “committed to a particular reality” [emphasis added], just committed to the reality that actually exists.

For those who may still be reading (I know Shannon is at least), I don’t understand why NJ doesn’t believe in Santa Claus. He seems to find Santa’s existence just as plausible as the existence of his hypothesized conscious energy (and so do I; on that much we agree). Yet he adds a telling disclaimer to his argument for Santa’s existence: “That is not to say I believe in Santa Claus”. Equally telling is his argument that the Santa hypothesis is plausible, while implying that it is also “absurd”. Interesting self-contradiction. My Santa hypothesis was not meant as mockery; it was meant as a challenge. I challenged NJ to explain why he considers it reasonable to reject the Santa hypothesis, but not his conscious energy hypothesis. I think he failed the challenge. Recognizing that he couldn’t dismiss the unsupported Santa hypothesis in any way distinct from my dismissal of his unsupported hypothesis, he chooses to argue instead that Santa’s existence is indeed plausible… and then promptly states for the record that he doesn’t really believe it. So despite his argument for its plausibility, he obviously deems it reasonable and sound to reject the Santa hypothesis. Then why is he so morally outraged that I’ve rejected his hypothesis on the same grounds?

And when faced with two hypotheses he considers plausible, why does NJ choose to believe one and reject the other? He offers no clarification. Let’s presume that NJ’s recent claims about detection of mysterious “dark masses” and “unexplained electromagnetic fluctuations” are all true. In what way would such findings support the existence of ghosts and conscious energy over the existence of Santa Claus, invisible gremlins, or leprechauns? The Santa hypothesis could be described in a way that would explain such mysterious phenomena equally well. But NJ prefers the idea of ghosts and conscious energy. And though apparently NJ is highly concerned about the standard of falsifiability in science, he gladly overlooks the scientific principles of scientific control and replicability when searching for evidence that might fit with his preferred conclusion.

I ask those reading to consider the Santa hypothesis and the reasons why you don’t believe it. Then consider NJ’s hypothesis and consider how (if at all) it’s different from postulating that Santa exists or that it is aliens (or magic fairies or the federal government) that are acting upon our brains, creating our internal experiences of consciousness and thought. Anyone can dream up an idea, but if there’s no evidence for it, the rational conclusion is to dismiss it. And while NJ continues to focus on the non-relevant fact that science currently has at best a rudimentary understanding of the brain processes responsible for experiences such as self-awareness and consciousness, the fact remains that everything we currently do know about consciousness and the brain supports the conclusion that consciousness does not exist without a brain. And most certainly, there is more evidence that the brain is solely responsible for such internal experiences than there is for even the mere existence of NJ’s proposed external energy source, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Adhering to reason not only requires openness to new evidence, but also knowing when to dismiss a claim as unfounded and thus adequately refuted by default. This is what NJ is unwilling to do in the case of his pet hypothesis, though very willing to do in the case of my proposed Santa hypothesis (and likely in the cases of the infinite other unsupported hypotheses he chooses not even to contemplate).

And yes, the discovery of sub-atomic particles (such as protons, neutrons, electrons, and quarks) was most certainly based on scientific observations, from which the existence of such particles could be inferred (for example, in the case of quarks, the observation that when very high energy electrons collide with protons, the distribution of particles after the collision is consistent with the presence of tiny particles inside protons). Scientists didn’t simply say one day: “hey, let’s buck the tide and imagine that there’s something smaller than an atom (or an electron) and then see if we can prove it”. Rather, in the course of their studies, they refined their investigations and methods of observation, gathered new data, and came up with new theories that explained the whole of their observations better than the current theories. Presumably in an attempt to validate his steadfast belief in his observationally-unsupported hypothesis, NJ claims that scientific advancement is sometimes based on “speculation based on available data” instead of observations. I challenge anyone to explain how “speculation based on available data” does not reduce to the most basic of sensory observations. What data are there that aren’t known via observation? I don’t reject NJ’s hypothesis because it runs contrary to current thinking; I reject it only because it is unsupported by evidence.

I now live in the bible belt, but grew up in the northeast. I am often frightened by the religious dogma that the majority of people here base their lives on. How refreshing to see that there are people(and homeschooling people!) who do not center everything around a purported god. I have several homeschooling friends and am considering homeschooling myself. One problem we have found is that the overwhelming amount of curricula has a religious bend to it.

God….Religion all made up by us humans as a coping mechanism. Sorry if this offends some, but do some research and the evidence if pretty conclusive.

Life after death….or just dead, this is a debatable topic and the lively discourse on this blog and been most engaging. This is a topic my husband and I sometimes end up all hours of the night arguing, he being a more spiritual person and I more scientific minded.
That said sometimes I do wonder if maybe the two can be interwoven together. It’s a nice thought to think that we get to maintain some form of energy, consious or unconsious after death. I think we are probably just coddling our hopeful little brains….but hey I am open to the thought (and hopeful myself) that after death a new experience begins. At this point in time I don’t think either theory can be proved or disproved though. So for now, I’m still more agreeable with Trixie’s train of thought, but I sure do like the idea of the whole we are one with the universe kit and kaboodle.

For me the main question I wrestle with is what to teach my daughter. She is rapidly approaching the age of five and will soon be exposed to god, religion, and spirituality. Being a person who holds no strong beliefs myself I often wonder what I am supposed to tell her. Because of work schedules it is most likely that she will go to school probably til third grade, or maybe even longer. She is going to be in school with deeply religious teachers and students(I am an elementary education major, and the other students in my classes are total bible freaks…so this is not just a projetion). I don’t want her to be ostracized because of a lack of firm beliefs in the Christian institution. What do you tell your kid when it comes to this kind of stuff?

this message is for elvie..you really want to know what to tell your 5 yr old daughter? tell her theres a god so she can go to the gates biotchh unlike her atheist mother. god and religion are made up to make humans feel good? wow…you have to believe in a creator… unless you created the world in that case i commend you

In response to Robin Sampson.

The reason I have come to this site is honestly, I googled “quantum physics What happens when we die”. I have grown up in “Trinity based Churches” all my life, up to now. I have experienced Catholic, Baptist, Pentacostal, and numerous “Non-denominational” bible based Churches. Also studying the different “interpretations” of the bible, ie King James, New King James, New International Version, New American Standard, etc. I am now opening my mind to research the scientific side to come to a more concrete, educated, decision on my belief to coincide with my faith. I have experienced many great experiences as a Christian to say, personally, it was a great way to grow up. Now that I am a medical professional, I cannot ignore the fact that a lot of the “Church’s” teachings are based on what a “person” has written down claiming their “prophecies from God” of what God purpose for us as humanity.

As a fellow Christian, assuming that is what you are claiming to be, your statement “Your spirit goes to heaven or hell. There are no other choices”, without explanation, whether it be biblical or scientific is close minded and embarrasing. To refute the obviously, fantastic, educated minds in this blog with an uneducated statement like that, is insulting and ignorant. It just proves to me that my feelings to research this area are more validated now.

I will admit my education is not even remotely close to the ones in this blog, which is why I have come to the realization that I need to keep learning. My conclusions, up to this point, is that the problem with “Society” around the world, not just our small peice of Western Civilization, is based on governed “laws” (Society created laws, not scientific)and media, created by “Man”, in an attempt to control our every action. I have personally asked God to direct me to the truth of our existance so that I may understand exactly what that is without a “person” telling me flat out what to believe.

To all of you in this blog, with the limited education I do have, the only statement that I have really appreciated up to this point is by NJDrummer in the following…

“If someone says something that “sounds good,” please take the time to verify some facts on both sides of the issue and make your own objective decision rather than “fall in step” with a particular viewpoint or worldview.”

I hope we can all agree with this point.

Thank you, to all of you whom have dedicated their lives to education and research. Without people like you we would all still be drooling, mindless, beings, walking through life in oblivion.

Gor

Elvie,

Well said. I am in a similar situation as you. I have no intention of home schooling, but my daughter is now 5 and I have a lot of the same questions.

Gor

What types of molecules are thought made of? The molecules that comprise neurons and neurotransmitters. The chemical formula for a thought? That’s sort of like asking for the chemical formula for a seed germinating. It’s a biological system in action, not the sort of thing you write a chemical formula for. But if hard pressed, you could describe using chemistry the multiple reactions chained together for neurotransmission. If you object that that’s not thought, well I’d say in one sense you’re right, seeing as “thought” is the label we give specifically to the internal (reported by the person possessing those neurons that are transmitting) experience of these processes. But if you’re again trying to insist that they’re literally separate, then I ask again show me evidence of thought existing where those the conditions for neurotransmission don’t exist.

Just because it’s amazing doesn’t mean it’s mysterious, and just because it’s not mysterious doesn’t mean it’s not amazing.

I had just said:

“If you object that that’s not thought, well I’d say in one sense you’re right, seeing as “thought” is the label we give specifically to the internal (reported by the person possessing those neurons that are transmitting) experience of these processes.”

And you followed that with:

“So you’re sayig that thoughts are material “things” made of molecules???”

I think that exchange speaks volumes.

Consider this. “Red” isn’t a thing made of molecules. But “red” _is_ the name we give to the internal experience of interactions between types of molecules (ones that reflect light of a certain wavelengths and ones organized into an eye-brain system). You can discuss “red” as not being the same as its physical substrata, but without them, there is no “red”. “Red” can be considered separately, but cannot _exist_ separately. Same with any other noun denoting a process or product consciousness. Some people wish it were otherwise, and I wish I had a million dollars.

No, that wasn’t the point of my analogy, and the so-called “tree falling in the forest” conundrum is only a conundrum because of ambiguity on the non-technical definitions of sound. The existence of earth is no more dependent upon our perception of it than the emission of red wavelengths from red objects are dependent upon non-colorblind animals looking at them. But _our perception_ of it _is_ dependent upon the existence of us as perceivers.

My point with the analogy was that conscious processes require, at least according to ALL evidence, a particular type of functioning biology. True enough that perceptions and thoughts are not the same (which is why we use different words for them), but they do not differ in their dependence on an biological substratum, which is the issue in question.

Much like a colorblind person being taught of the existence of the distinction between red and green, or much like you or me being taught about ultraviolet wavelengths, we can understand them from a third person perspective. But lacking the correct perceptual apparatus wired into our own brains, we will never perceive them. The conscious experience is independent upon the correctly functioning biological component, although the ultraviolet wavelengths themselves are not.

You die, brain stops working, no more thoughts, no more perceptions, no more _you_, world keeps chugging along. That’s the simplest interpretation of all available evidence, and so obvious.

This is nice topic, I think according the law of conservation of energy, I wonder where could our energy after dieing go ??? …

I have just read this topic (a question I myself have pondered) and would like to commend you all on missing the point and not addressing the initial question, a career in politics might be better suited than to pondering such topics.

My personal view is somewhat inspired by William Of Ockham.

Our bodies while alive convert food into energy. Some process of being ‘alive’ releases this as the energy perceived as consciousness. When we die this process stops and any latent energy disperses (as heat or whatever it has to go somewhere) leaving behind a cold lump of matter which get eaten. All matter/energy is conserved.

The real question to me is What is life and why does it die.

Life and death trip me out almost as much infinity and quanta.

Notorious,

Since you’ve put “alive” in quotes, I’m interested to hear what “alive” means to you. I know how the discipline of biology defines life and wonder if you define it as the same. Also, though I’m not well read in the personal philosophy of W. Ockham, perhaps you can enlighten me as to which processes of being alive relates to consciousness in this philosophy. What is consciousness? Are all things “alive” also conscious?

As for why life dies – the short answer is programmed cell death and an ever-shortening chain of DNA (via replication over millions of times) that eventually shortens to the point that critical parts of chromosomes are lost.

Don Lopez:

I’ve heard of the “God zone” of the brain before, though I forget what it’s actually called. It’s an interesting topic. However, if you are examining the issue scientifically, there is more evidence to support that man did create “God” in order to inhibit “unwanted” behaviors and to encourage “desired” behaviors going back many thousands of years. Granted, I have not read the article you referenced. Perhaps in my “spare time” I can get to it.

Since the universe is now being thought of as an electric universe I propose the following. I believe once we die our energy gets reintroduced into the electric universe. Our energy becomes apart of a larger picture.

This could explain why some people have prior life memories.

I believe this energy is sometimes recycled. In other words, the energy is reincarnated into another life. True energy can’t be created or destroyed. It is only transformed into something else.

This is something that surely has interested people since awareness of our own existence (unlike animals) has happened to us. Yet reading this blog anyone would think that modern-day science embodied all the human cumulative answers to date!
Is it really true that ‘uneducated’ people around the globe are dribbling and oblivious?
Can science explain why ,when I look at a sunset, I find it beautiful?
I’m not preaching on about a God here, but asking where the mechanics of science are in such an experience.
Does everyone believe that there are only 2 possible realms of existence, life or ‘the’ afterlife? Couldn’t there be millions of different realms? Couldn’t some of the different realms of existence interact with each other? Maybe that would create ghosts , mediums etc.
Is everything handed down to us through spirituality and ancient wisdom just null and void because we have ‘science’? Science is surely everything and anything, not just what we have so far been clever enough to measure or observe. When did electricity get invented? When we began to understand and harness it for our own use?
I think Western and Eastern, old and new should all be taken into account in attempting to answer the original blog question.
I’m not a bible-basher but I think the bible has some wisdom to offer me if I try and understand it in a metaphorical way. And logic tells me if a fundamentalist Christian had been born in another Country , their views could be entirely different. The question is , would they then go to hell?
Meditation teaches me that I can experience myself beyond the confines of my body. That , in turn, leads me to believe that my existence is more -was and will be afterwards- than a brief spell as Zoe on Earth.
Anti-anxiety drugs have acted for me like an aspirin for a headache, the pain is temporarily dulled which gives some relief , but the underlying problem still exists. Though the Government is currently giving orders for Cognitive Behavioural Therapists to be sent out en mass to cure us OCDers , statistically it is already known by that same Gov. that in the vast majority of cases this type of therapy will fail. It is nice to know , however, that a scientist has found an alternative therapy that works! Mind over matter?
I have been driven, through illness, to explore different ‘cures’ and theories over the years and I would definitely lean towards Eastern therapies when it comes to genuine cures. Acupuncture and Meditation have been amazing in helping me, and I do believe that they have scientific bases, but ones that Western science has not yet grasped. Although I have heard about alpha-waves..
Wouldn’t it be better if people could just bring their theories, spiritual ideas, sciences and philosophies together? Couldn’t we treat every idea as valid and see how the current factors all fit together instead of arguing about who is right or what is right!
By the way..you might want to check out the latest on the idea that everyone used to think the world was flat.

…..Why is a sunset beautiful? Does it connect with something inside us, an infinite energy? Who knows

I know this post looks a bit old now, but it is something i stumbled across in which i am very interested. I am 18 years old and life’s truths and harsh realities have set in. The constant fear of nothing-ness after death has ignited panic which i can not rid myself of. I’ve been doing alot of research on the spiritual and scientific side, and have learned alot of things. Prior to my research i was a devote ATheist, but i feel as if i may be swaying my stand on the matter. I am a ( believe it when i see it) type of person, so it is difficult for me to fully dedicate faith to an intangible occurence; being; whatever yu may call it. I believe that the CERN facility in Switzerland is going to be a major scientific breakthrough that will answer alot of questions and i’m looking forward to results, since seeing the particle accelerator located at the facility has been repaired, and is now up and running. Does anybody wanna chat????

One other thought i’d like to leave you with and you can take it how you will is my own theory of “Natural Resources” This theory that I have long pondered about involves all the things that are in our great planet, the use of, amount of, and how its just seems to be too perfect, and in just the right amounts. Not for the cow on the farm or for the fluffy cat on the couch but, most of all for us the humans. Take a look at the automobile for example, the metal for the engine and body, the rubber on your wheels, the glass, “sand” for your windshield, the anitfreeze to keep it cool, the fuel that makes it go. Sure people could walk everywhere or ride a horse, but cars, trucks, planes were meant for humans, and we have just the right amounts in this planet. Why are there so few diamonds, so many trees? Think about it, the materials that it takes to make the wonderful homes we live in and the places we work in so that life can go on in a comfortable way. Our natural resources on this planet provide humans with a way to live and a way of life that i believe is just too right. I would not even be writing this right now if there was not battery for my laptop. Something which would be useless to my pet fish. Just seems all too perfect to be just coincidence. Take a look at your life, your job, your hobbies, and how you live life. Ask yourself if we could even be human with out having all the too perfect elements of this planet.