simplicitypvp.net

Gnatogryz wrote:

waronchickens97 wrote:Death is often refered to as the destruction of conscious, wheras ghosts are thought to be a spiritual embodiment of the conscious. This is a direct contradiction, and only one theory is based in science. Guess which? :P

This is not the only definition of death, nor the only definition of ghosts (or souls). Also, if death = destruction of consciousness, then I guess plants and bacteria never die? :)

Technically plants and bacteria are conscious; they are sensitive ( phototropism), they can feed, they can reproduce, and four other things I.can't remember :P

waronchickens97 wrote:Technically plants and bacteria are conscious; they are sensitive ( phototropism), they can feed, they can reproduce, and four other things I.can't remember :P

That's the definition of being alive, not being conscious :)
That's why people who are brain dead are called "vegetables".

If something is sensitive, it can obviously see what's in its beat interest. Is that not consciousness?

Probably something involving magnets.

waronchickens97 wrote:Is that not consciousness?

Nope :)

all life is compelled to do the things they do, due to chemical or electric stimulus. If we call the impulses in our brain that tells us what to do a consciousness then i see no difference in the way lower life forms are compelled to do things. But i guess if this is going to be the issue in this line of thought, perhaps it begs to need consciousness defined.
The state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
The awareness or perception of something by a person.

This is the definition i found and in this way plants and bacteria are conscious as they are aware. The plant is aware of the sun the cell is aware of the cells around it.

I'm not convinced by that definition, because it would mean that computers equipped with sensors are conscious, which they are not.

The "mirror test" definition kinda fits my understanding of it:
"The mirror test is a measure of self-awareness, as animals either possess or lack the ability to recognize themselves in a mirror."

well then i think you see it as defined by being self aware. Which is maybe the aspect of the supposed soul we should be focusing on. As for computers; the more we advance the more they attain consciousness. They may even attain a level of being self aware or sentient but they would never be biological life forms. So i don't think we need bother with all that. If a plant were to die and leave behind a soul I see no reason for the soul to be any more conscious or self aware than it was when it was alive. A lot of religious text says things like "you must prepare your soul". This gives me the feeling that perhaps even sentients like us may be totally retarded in spiritual form. And only if we have developed a strong soul will we be able to effectively command our corporeal form. Which would also explain why ghosts tend towards rather stupid behavior. Yet some one with very low spiritual connection would just fade out completely. I guess all in all there doesn't have to be only one answer they may all be right.

RevStoningpot wrote:I guess all in all there doesn't have to be only one answer they may all be right.

That's why knowing the answer to unanswerable questions just because it is written in a book is stupid :)

Okay so to reiterate: I believe that a self aware entity can exist without what we know as a physical body. And since i believe (and by believe i do mean that i'm pretty damn sure about it, not that it's just a working idea i have) in that I feel (<- see not as sure) we may very well be driven in some way by such an entity. So in death, if the entity remains, the possibilities are as endless as the universe. Also I'd like to point out that this entity may be our self or perhaps a symbiote. In which case when we die, that's it, but the symbiote carry's on our life's memory.