What happens after we die?

Heaven or hell.

>Life and consciousness is a process, not a "thing." When you snuff out a candle flame you don't ask where the flame went, it simply no longer exists. Just like it didn't exist before you lit the candle.

>Metabolic reactions provide the energy with which the "reaction" of life proceeds. Once life ceases it's nonsensical to talk about where it has now gone to, just like with the flame. After you die will be the same as before you were born as far as your consciousness is concerned.

epiphenomenalism is right

saying nothing happens after you die is the edgy answer? kys

the problem with questions like these is that it inevitably boils down to 2deep4u metaphysics like

what is the nature of reality?

that no college-level intellectual can answer (or any present intellectual for that matter)

you can try to explain it better but it just starts breaking down into different questions

what space does our universe occupy? what is the nature of that space?

not to mention there are many things we don't know

history has told us that every time people think they know a lot, they actually don't know shit

Nice non-sequitur and ad hominem.

It sounds fedora-y but it's the truth.

A human body is simply a very particular arrangement of atoms interacting with each other through the four fundamental forces of nature. The crowning achievement of hundreds of years of physics is the Standard Model, which tells us what is allowed in such systems. There is no room for mystical things like souls or a consciousness that exists beyond the laws of the universe as we know them.

You get judged and either go to live with Jesus and the Father until the second coming, or you get destroyed.

Guys, please fuck off to the site beginning with R, I made it explicitly clear I didn't want any 14 year olds polluting this thread in the OP.

Temporal cortex has cell populations that are responsible for identifying familiar patterns. Damage to this area can cause inability to recognize familiar faces, sounds and failure to understand meaning of messages.

The Standard Model is a very bad model actually and fucks up predictions by dozens of orders of magnitude.

>There is no room for mystical things like souls or a consciousness that exists beyond the laws of the universe as we know them.
*Tips fedora*
You're basing everything on the idea that there actually is an objective outside physical world which is false. Reality is a projection of our minds. The universe wouldn't exist without consciousness.

Sheol the infinite black pit of fear

/thread

youtube.com/watch?v=hlOQxI7nTYY

>21 posts
>9 posters
Samefagging is real. Bait thread.

>believing anything an american says

You sound really sure of that, I hope for your sake you're right

Justify your position that the Standard Model is bad.

Admittedly the Standard Model is not perfect and there's still lots to be done in physics (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Model). That does not in the slightest mean that we can't take certain of its predictions as truths.

Consider the existence of atoms - it doesn't matter how much our knowledge of physics increases with time, a billion years from now matter will still be describable as a collection of atoms interacting via the known forces. Similarly, we know enough of physics now to say conclusively that there is no life after death. Watch the first couple minutes of

Same thing that happened before we lived.

A billion years is a long time dude

Everybody is too sure of their positions here, skeptic out

You think at some point in the next billion years the nature of reality will fundamentally change? With shit like Hubble we can literally view the universe as it existed >10 billion years ago. There is no evidence to support your claim, whereas every single observation and experiment every performed by humanity supports the fact that atoms (really fundamental particles, which are excitations of quantum fields, but that starts to get esoteric) make up matter. You have to doubt the existence of atoms if you choose to doubt the other conclusions of physics.

This has already been discussed in the other consciousness thread. In fact, making this thread when that thread is already up is a strong case for this being a troll thread.
boards.Veeky Forums.org/sci/thread/8682044#lr8715891

The Standard Model makes predictions that are many billions of times off the actual experimental results. It's just like classical mechanics, Newtons equations work and predict things, but over large distances they fail because they assume Gravity is a force and not the curvature of spacetime. We're seeing the exact same thing with the Standard Model, it predicts some things perfectly and spits out complete nonsense for other things, which means we're misunderstanding something really fundamental about the nature of the universe.

In short appealing to the standard model is a bad idea because we know for a fact it's wrong, we just havn't found anything better yet.

>The Standard Model makes predictions that are many billions of times off the actual experimental results.
Yea no

I'm saying I'm 99% sure our current understanding of physics is right and we should build on it and apply the scientific method everywhere we can

but you should always be humble in your knowledge

You haven't said anything that disagrees with me, let me explain why by continuing your analogy to Newtonian physics.

F=ma is technically incorrect, we know that now from special relativity. But even before we had special relativity we could say conclusively that, if there WERE some new theory that better explained reality, it would absolutely have to make the same predictions as F=ma in the regimes that had already been tested. This the same for the Standard Model.

There is much the Standard Model is missing. However, none of that is relevant in the regime in which human beings live. We are relatively ordinary collections of atoms and live our entire lives in conditions under which we ALREADY UNDERSTAND ALL OF PHYSICS. Sure we don't know what dark matter and dark energy and lots of other stuff is yet, but that's not relevant.

Look at this plot of forces that we've conclusively ruled out as existing. You could claim that there are things we haven't found yet in the unexplored regime and you would very likely be correct, but that doesn't mean you can claim there's a mystical force that propagates our souls and the information contained in our brains. That falls within an energy regime in which we know that the "F=ma" of the Standard Model works, even if there's another Special Relativity out there to tell us that we're lacking the whole picture.

>Attempts to explain dark energy in terms of vacuum energy of the standard model lead to a mismatch of 120 orders of magnitude

>We are relatively ordinary collections of atoms and live our entire lives in conditions under which we ALREADY UNDERSTAND ALL OF PHYSICS
lol not even close.

Ok, provide evidence for your claim. I am for mine.

We don't live at crazy high/low temperatures where our knowledge of physics breaks down. Earth doesn't reside in spacetime that is warped to an extent that our knowledge of physics breaks down. The energy scales of atoms/biomolecules/neurons/organs/us are not in a regime in which our knowledge of physics breaks down.

It seems like you're probably just trolling though so maybe I should stop wasting my time if you're not interested in logical discussion.

Physics doesn't say anything about how consciousness can be formed. It doesn't need to 'break down', it doesn't explain it period. There's no point being so sure that physics 'disproves' an afterlife when it can't even explain how physical phenomena could give rise to consciousness in the first place. And all of that is assuming the idea that there actually is an external objective reality, the holographic universe theory says there might not be and we're all projections of consciousness, in which case the entire line of reasoning is a red herring because the physical brain is an illusion just like everything else.

Confidently stating that we "know" physics therefore we fully understand the nature of consciousness and what happens to it after death is a clear sign you're a pseud. We know very little, and knowing how atoms interact tells us absolutely nothing about how they 'create' a consciousness, assuming consciousness is emergent of the physical brain which it very well might not be.

Define "consciousness".

If the physical doesn't give rise to the mind, then why do brains even exist?

you get reborn into the same life

You are simply incorrect that physics doesn't explain consciousness. In the same way that fire is a chemical process so too is consciousness. Combustion reactions provide the driving force for fire, while metabolic reactions provide the driving force for neuronal signals and thus consciousness. It is a process orders of magnitude more complex than simple combustion, but the fundamental laws governing it are the same.

Our brains are COMPLETELY DESCRIBABLE as collections of atoms interacting in ways governed by the laws of physics as we know them. I would recommend you watch some videos by Sean Carroll () and try to understand his explanations. I had a couple classes with him in undergrad, he's brilliant and a great orator.

How horrifying.