Death worried me when I had dependents. Not anymore. My only concern now is not suffering as I go down the drain.


Thinking about death becomes more recurrent after, say, 50, because we are aware of the increasing likelihood of it. Our bodies slowly start to fall apart (as we finally get our heads together).


I think it is only natural to fear death. As living beings, we are hard-wired for self-preservation. And this is why suicide is so difficult: anyone contemplating suicide is going against their most basic and fierce instincts. It's in our genes to fight to stay alive.


Regarding any other considerations and speculations, I subscribe to NdGT:" The only absolute truths are the laws of physics, everything else is just opinion."

First of all, thank you for your comments

BrucePartington mentioned why we the human feel the Death become more personal or more present after a certain age.
( I take his statement as a theory, cause I guess there are a lot of them)

Which was one of my question- Why does we feel it more personal or present after a certain age.


Markus

Because when you're young you are in the best health you will ever be, and natural death is many decades away. You feel immortal. While accidents can happen, they always happen to somebody else.

Death seems a lot closer when people you have known for years are dying of "natural causes" and the reality is that you will die sooner than later. My grandfather died after a brief bout with pneumonia at age 72. My dad made it to 84, and I think that at my age he was in better health than I am. Even if I live to the same age, that's only 16 years away. It seems more real because it is more real. It's a lot closer than it used to be.

As much as I enjoy what NdGT has to say. I wouldn't call the laws of physics an absolute truth, its IMO more like an evolving logical system of thought. I also believe NdGT said eye witness accounts of certain experiences are the least form of evidence. But no matter how you slice it and dice it is still evidence.

First, it would have been nice if you had used the man's full name just once, so everybody wouldn't have to look all over the place to find out what you're even talking about. Markus may not have a clue who Neil deGrasse Tyson is, let alone anything he may or may not have said.

Second, I have to ask what this line of argument has to do with the topic at hand.

Third, Tyson was far from the first person to say that. It's a common subject for discussion in law classes as well as philosophy.

Lastly, given what I think you've said, I have to disagree. Just because one person, or many, claim to have seen the same thing or had the same experience, it doesn't mean that experience is real. It is worth looking into, just on the chance that it is, but it's also wise to consider that a similar experience may stem from a similar reaction to an influence rather than an actual event. You say it's still evidence, but evidence of what?

Witness accounts at court are not taken as evidence, becasue they are just subjective claim. And the memory can err, malfunction, subject to intoxication, bioneural effects, psychological processes attaching post-effect processing :) ...



Own experience is just this: a subjective view of something. It can nevertheless unfold a strong motivational effect for the one who made the experience, but thats all. It is no objective evidence.

Off topic

As a big fan of science especially The Univers and quantum mechanics I do know who Neil deGrasse Tyson is.

I was unaware that NdGT in fact was Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Markus

End of off topic

Death is nature's way of telling you to slow down

Make the most of it!!:yep:

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FlimsySlus...cher-small.gif

Stay on topic please. we already have one internet crusader so stop presuming what others know or dont know and telling others how they should write or think. We're all big boys and girls here if YOU dont know something a simple question who or what is NdGT would have sufficed. My response was directed to BP's use of the same initials posted above.

Read page one started by Mapuc. It has to do with death, thoughts, fears etc.

Whats your point?

What is real what is not? Eye witness evidence is when someone says they witnessed or in this case experienced something. Can it be supported or corroborated ? I'm afraid only by others with similar experiences which leaves the rest of the world wondering. But it doesn't make what the person experienced any less real. It does directly challenge the other never proven concept that consciousness and memories are localized in the brain. If consciousness is not within the brain not built of flesh and blood then it is not confined by the vitality of the brain. I'm of the opinion the mind/consciousness/soul or what whatever you want to call it doesn't die with the brain. And you know what? It's OK if you dont agree with that nor do I expect you too.

Fair enough. My whole response was based on the idea that you brought up Tyson in the first place. In a careful search of the whole thread I still managed to miss that it had been posted before. My bad.

On that I still disagree. To me it seems that you were talking not about death but about proving a point about evidence.

[/quote]Whats your point?[/quote]
My point was that you brought up Tyson and his philosophy out of the blue, with no regard to what went before. But, as said, I missed the post you were responding to, so my point was misplaced. Again, I apologize.

True, but observations and experiments involving psychosis indicate that not all perceived experiences are real.

You say "never proven", but thus far nothing has been shown that awareness and thought exist without a brain.

And yet it has been shown unequivocally that damage to the brain has a direct effect on functions involving thought.

As I said, damage to the brain has been shown to have a direct effect on consciousness. I find it unreasonable to expect that the ultimate damage - the brain shutting down, then decaying to dust - would result in anything other than complete loss of mental processes. When a severely brain-damaged person dies, is functionality somehow mystically restored to live forever in perfect awareness?

Do near-death experiences indicate that there really is something beyond this life? Or are they simply the result of oxygen starvation that is suddenly reversed? I don't claim to know anything about it, but barring any testable evidence I don't believe anything, one way or the other.

"Despite zillions of us slaving away at the subject, we still don't know squat about how the brain works" - Dr. Robert Sapolsky

"Nobody understands how decisions are made or how imagination is set free. What consciousness consists of, or how it should be defined, is equally puzzling. Despite the marvelous successes of neuroscience in the past century, we seem as far from understanding cognitive processes as were a century ago" - Sir John Maddox

One must locate human consciousness/awareness before it can be said brain damage has a direct affect on. The puzzle in the mind brain interface is not in the recording of and bio-chemical storage of incoming sensory data. That's brain work. The puzzle is in the replay, there is no hint in the brain of how you hear or see or what you have heard or seen. There is nosound in your brain. Put a stethoscope to your head and all you will hear is the gurgle of blood rushing through the veins. No voices, no music but you hear voices and you hear music. But where is unknown. The identical biochemical reaction that in one part of the brain that store inputs related tothe sounds we hear in another location record the sights we see. But its all chemistry and even more mind bending its all the SAME chemistry. Obviously thats how we percieve the chemistry. The mystery is the the location of that perception. Maybe an NDE or brain damge is similar too smashing the reciever the radio waves are still there. Then again, maybe not! :haha:


I prefer to ponder the possibilities. From the burial of Abraham, the story of Er to the peer reviewd medical journal Lancet which in 2001 published the "never proven concept that consciousness and memories are located in the brain should be discussed" https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...100-8/fulltext . (you can find the full text on other websites but I fear if I linked to them I would be accused of being ignorant, religious or new age by crusaders.) :03::D


Oh almost forgot. Sir Roger Penrose has some pretty kewl theories on youtube concerning the quantum nature of consciousness. Though he has his critics Sir Roger Penrose is no slouch, the guy is a real genius.