Memories Retained After Death (The Case for an Afterlife)

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

Think back to your earliest memory. For me it's hard to say, when I think back to my earliest memory I get a bunch of random images back from when I was 3-4 years old, our old apartment in Australia, my fourth birthday in Indonesia, my first airplane ride, that time mom and dad argued, etc...

My recollection of time during this period is cloudy at best. I could remember going to sleep at a certain time and place only to wake up one week in the future at a different location. I know I couldn't possibly have slept for one whole week, I had to be up and doing something during this time but I just couldn't remember. It's almost as if that one week period did not exist...

Back to my point, most people do not remember their moment of birth. Their first retained experience could go somewhere along the lines of waking up as a random three year old surprisingly aware of the world around him, even going so far as to posses a decent comprehension of linguistics (as far as three year olds go)... How can this be possible? Three years of lost memory would make it seem as if you were born only yesterday. It's almost as if a mass of information had been forced into your head in an instant...

Let's compare this experience to death. Even as I type, new information is being processed and memories made as as each second ticks and I inch closer to death. If it is true that all memories and recollection are erased at the moment of death, how is it possible that I am conscious of the life I am experiencing? If we can't even recollect the first three years of our lives, how is it possible that I am even conscious of the fifteen years of my life I am currently experiencing (minus the three years I couldn't recollect)? After all, what we call our conscious is really a recollection of past information, no matter how brief that instance was (We don't really live in real time, our brains take time to process information and relay it back to the senses).

If it is true that everything is erased at the moment of death, it should almost feel like we didn't exist at all. Similarly if I didn't exist, I would not be able to recollect all the memories, senses, and emotions I am experiencing right now, like typing this thread for example. Therefore theoretically, a degree of conscience must be retained even after death...

Afterlife anyone?

[Tankbuster]

I really am trying to catch your drift here, but you're not making a whole lot of sense.
Basically, the case against an after-life is:
- The brain is a chemical composition: emotions, personality, memories, can all be traced back to various areas of the brain and we have no evidence for any supernatural elements.
- At death, all the various chemical processes in your body stop

Ergo, you lose your emotions, personality, memories at death. As well as everything else.

The case for an after-life would have to explain either how the brain is not strictly material, or give us an example of consciousness without the brain.

Think back to your earliest memory. For me it's hard to say, when I think back to my earliest memory I get a bunch of random images back from when I was 3-4 years old, our old apartment in Australia, my fourth birthday in Indonesia, my first airplane ride, that time mom and dad argued, etc...

My recollection of time during this period is cloudy at best. I could remember going to sleep at a certain time and place only to wake up one week in the future at a different location. I know I couldn't possibly have slept for one whole week, I had to be up and doing something during this time but I just couldn't remember. It's almost as if that one week period did not exist...

Back to my point, most people do not remember their moment of birth. Their first retained experience could go somewhere along the lines of waking up as a random three year old surprisingly aware of the world around him, even going so far as to posses a decent comprehension of linguistics (as far as three year olds go)...

Okay... So far so good. It's well known that it takes a long time for our cognitive functions to develop to the point that we actually remember things for long periods of time.

How can this be possible? Three years of lost memory would make it seem as if you were born only yesterday. It's almost as if a mass of information had been forced into your head in an instant...

Well, no. A baby does in fact have memories: they'll remember who their mom and dad is, they'll remember certain words and events, they'll learn how to walk.
You just can't remember them now.

It's not at all like you suddenly wake up and have no idea what the hell is going on. It's more of a gradual transition to being fully conscious.

Let's compare this experience to death. Even as I type, new information is being processed and memories made as as each second ticks and I inch closer to death. If it is true that all memories and recollection are erased at the moment of death, how is it possible that I am conscious of the life I am experiencing?

Errrrr... see, this doesn't follow.
You have memories and recollection because you can access them in the brain (since the chemical processes are still working).
At death these processes stop and accessing them again is impossible (and so is generating consciousness).
Where's the problem?

If we can't even recollect the first three years of our lives, how is it possible that I am even conscious of the fifteen years of my life I am currently experiencing (minus the three years I couldn't recollect)? After all, what we call our conscious is really a recollection of past information, no matter how brief that instance was (We don't really live in real time, our brains take time to process information and relay it back to the senses).

It's not that you weren't conscious at all during the first three years of your life, as I've already pointed out. You were conscious; the memories simply weren't engrained enough to the point where you can remember them after many, many years.
Now that your brain is fully developed and your consciousness fully "booted", as it were, you are able to recollect experiences during much longer periods of time.

If it is true that everything is erased at the moment of death, it should almost feel like we didn't exist at all. Similarly if I didn't exist, I would not be able to recollect all the memories, senses, and emotions I am experiencing right now, like typing this thread for example.

Again, the same non sequitur as above: at death all the chemical processes you now use to remember things, will cease to function. Now, on the other hand, they are still functioning so obviously you are able to do these things.
There is a clear difference between the two situations.

Therefore theoretically, a degree of conscience must be retained even after death...

That's a non sequitur as well.

Afterlife anyone?

I don't see why. You need to flesh out your argument a lot more, specifically expanding on how consciousness can be non-physical.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

How can you differentiate between what you can't remember and what never experienced? You can't... at least without a third party telling you what you missed out on. So if your memories are wiped out at the moment of death, to YOU it would be identical to never existing at all, and if you never existed, you wouldn't be able to remember this moment... If A=B, and B=C, then A=C

[Tankbuster]

How can you differentiate between what you can't remember and what never experienced? You can't... at least without a third party telling you what you missed out on.

Which has no relevance as to whether or not consciousness can continue after death.

So if your memories are wiped out at the moment of death, to YOU it would almost be like you never lived at all, and if you never lived at all, you wouldn't be able to remember this moment...

It would only look that way assuming that I would still be conscious to make that observation. Which I will not be, since consciousness is a process generated by the brain.

Your question is a bit like asking how would I measure my heart pulse if my head was chopped off...

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

Which has no relevance as to whether or not consciousness can continue after death.

Yea it does listen. We both agree that you alone cannot differentiate lack of memory with lack of experience.

To YOU: Lack of Memory = Lack of Experience (Lack of Existence)

Mind you I said to YOU. You still exist during that memory gap yet it would be of little significance to YOU since you weren't able to recollect that experience...

So to YOU: Lack of Experience = Lack of Existence

YOU simply cannot differentiate the two.

So given the postulates: Lack of Memory = Lack of Experience
Lack of Experience = Lack of Existence

Loss of Memory = Loss of Existence

The idea that you lose memory at death would be identical to the idea that you never existed at all... If you never existed then you would not be able to recollect senses, thoughts, memories and emotions in everyday life. If you could describe non existence as a feeling, that's what you should be experiencing if it is true you lose all conscience at death...

[Tankbuster]

If you could describe non existence as a feeling, that's what you should be experiencing if it is true you lose all conscience at death...

You're not feeling non-existence; you're unable to feel anything anymore because the very concept of 'you' is now void.
You are simply not existing anymore.

The problem with the equivocation you're drawing is that it's based on subjective experiences, not reality. Which breaks apart instantly unless you start explaining how we would be able to feel anything after our death.

[Spiff]

I really cant follow this line of reasoning.. If I turn off my computer then the physical information is still on the hard drive, it is just inaccessible due to lack of power - I could turn the computer back on if I wanted to to load the operating system. Same with a person, in the immediate aftermath of death their physical brain and memories are still there, just inaccessible. The difference being that a brain will decompose much faster than a hard drive will degrade.

When you die you aren't losing your memories, your brain is 'losing its power' - it would be theoretically possible to preserve that brain and revive the person later given serious advancements in medical technology.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

What you described as the experience that we suddenly "wake up" is in fact tied to our growth. When we sleep, or when we are too young, we're in a rather "vegetable" state, ergo without consciousness.

Quite simply, you don't have memories because they don't exist. A child can't recognize an abstract world which memories are made of, it simply lives in a purely factual and passing frame until its own consciousness is born. I would speculate that's around 4-6 years of age.

[Phier]

Quite simply, you don't have memories because they don't exist. A child can't recognize an abstract world which memories are made of, it simply lives in a purely factual and passing frame until its own consciousness is born. I would speculate that's around 4-6 years of age.

Wrong.

I have a 5 year old, who remember details better than I or my wife do. He will remember places he was when he was 2 and what he ate there, who was there, and what he did. Its almost spooky. Hes been doing this since he could talk. Hes also known things like the sun was made out of hydrogen since he was about 3, among other basic science facts I've taught him. Odds are he still won't remember any of this when he is 30, but the memories are there. My guess is they just chemically 'deteriorate', and are more prone to do so than adult memories since his brain is still growing and changing.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Wrong.

I have a 5 year old, who remember details better than I or my wife do. He will remember places he was when he was 2 and what he ate there, who was there, and what he did. Its almost spooky. Hes been doing this since he could talk. Hes also known things like the sun was made out of hydrogen since he was about 3, among other basic science facts I've taught him. Odds are he still won't remember any of this when he is 30, but the memories are there. My guess is they just chemically 'deteriorate', and are more prone to do so than adult memories since his brain is still growing and changing.

Of course, there are child prodigies everywhere. For myself, my first memories come from when I was 5.

Can't say that he knows abstractions, though. Teaching a child that the moon is made of cheese might get them, but trying to explain them the particulars of political idealism or spatial depth might be futile; of course, your child might be just ahead of the time. I only speculate.

[Elfdude]

Of course, there are child prodigies everywhere. For myself, my first memories come from when I was 5.

Can't say that he knows abstractions, though. Teaching a child that the moon is made of cheese might get them, but trying to explain them the particulars of political idealism or spatial depth might be futile; of course, your child might be just ahead of the time. I only speculate.

Eh from the time we're children we go through several neural 'cullings'. Which usually end up damaging the memories of our early childhood. Eventually if we didn't use our memory enough as children we lose our future ability to form long term accurate memories like many of us could as children.

Since phier's child is only 5 I would say wait until he's reached puberty and try to get him to remember something.

Also, my first memory is when I was 2 and my mother was arrested for beating me when she came to pick me up from daycare because the dumb daycare lady had no clue what Mongolian spots were. Basically, there a condition that olive toned skinned people have to deal with frequently as children where small round blue spots that look very similar to bruises (except their semi permanent nature) develop all over your body. I lost the my last 'spot' when I was about 10.

The idea that memory before around this age can't exist is very wrong. Children who have their memory exercised frequently as toddlers tend to remember quite a bit. Memory was one of my favorite games as a kid.

Because a jump in time perception occurs at the moment of memory loss... To avoid this jump, either the brain would have to retain memory in a conscious form forever (impossible), or that information would have to be transferred elsewhere in a different form.

Memory is stored more or less forever in the brain like a computer. However because of the shear amount of data a human brain takes in and interprets the organic memory is prone to errors, partial deletions and corruption. Basically, neurons can be reassigned from remembering to another memory, emotions can be added or taken away from the memories, details can switch or merge, and connections are cut. If it wasn't for the fact that the brain disintegrates so fast we might even be able to retrieve those memories. The brain works on efficiency principles. You use it or you lose it. It is capable of nearly perfect memory but our OS (so to speak) doesn't put so much emphasis on that. Sort of a structural abnormality there's not much of a way to change the way our brains work.

[Arch-hereticK]

Memories are stored in the brain. Unfunctioning brain = no more memories.

[Squiggle]

Wrong.

I have a 5 year old, who remember details better than I or my wife do. He will remember places he was when he was 2 and what he ate there, who was there, and what he did. Its almost spooky. Hes been doing this since he could talk. Hes also known things like the sun was made out of hydrogen since he was about 3, among other basic science facts I've taught him. Odds are he still won't remember any of this when he is 30, but the memories are there. My guess is they just chemically 'deteriorate', and are more prone to do so than adult memories since his brain is still growing and changing.

Yeah, I have a few very hazy memories of when I was three, and I recall- as best one can given the memory is distorted- thinking and perceiving, and knowing the world around me. I remember the idea of memory, ya know? In fact when I was younger I would of list out as many memories from when I was 2, 3 etc in as much detail as possible. Slowly as time has gone on even though I can vaguely remember listing out a memory to do with "falling down the steps" I cant actually remember it now. Or its incredibly distorted, even though I can recall a time only a few years ago where it was not. Some memories I do recall is explaining words to my dad, or explaining in detail what an animal was that I had learned a week previous on this zoo show on discovery. I certainly had a high degree of consciousness and recollection even when I was two and three.

I dont think anyone just pops into consciousness, its just a very slow murky gray area... and unfortunately we gradually lose personal evidence of this.

[iudas]

I don't remember being born either. I certainly won't remember dying. Your argument for an afterlife is invisible to me.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

What you described as the experience that we suddenly "wake up" is in fact tied to our growth. When we sleep, or when we are too young, we're in a rather "vegetable" state, ergo without consciousness.

Quite simply, you don't have memories because they don't exist. A child can't recognize an abstract world which memories are made of, it simply lives in a purely factual and passing frame until its own consciousness is born. I would speculate that's around 4-6 years of age.

Exactly!

Think of death as a giant amnesia. Amnesia patients always describe their last memory at a given place and time before suddenly waking up in the hospital a few hours/days/weeks later... Did they magically teleport through space-time? No... it's just that missing memory is directly related to your perception of time and place. If you lost all memory at death, you wouldn't even be conscious of your surroundings at this present moment. Your perception of time would not even "jump" like that of an amnesia patient's, amnesia patients still retain some memory. You would simply "jump" from the moment of birth to the moment of death, ergo, nothingness...

Try to understand this "jump" in perception of time, like when a patient wakes up from coma after a few years. In this case however, you wouldn't be waking up from anything since you would be void of all memory.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

Ok we know that we don't live in real time. Let the line represent time:

Pre-Birth->Birth->Memories->Present Conscience->Information your brain is processing->------------------->Death

If it is true that all information is erased at the moment of death, you would not be able to experience a present conscience because that experience too will disappear. Seeing how time perception would be wiped out along with all information, this is what you would be experiencing if the line representing time is now erased...

Pre-Birth.....................TIME PERCEPTION JUMP..............................Death

Except you won't even be able to feel it because you would lack a complete conscience of existence, similar to experiences never retained as an infant. Get it?

[Spiff]

But your memories aren't wiped out on death, the physical atoms and molecules are still there - people can be revived for quite some time after death providing their brain and other organs are still intact. Theoretically all you need to do is preserve someone's brain - who knows what the future holds in that regard.

If you consider death as simply "currently irreversible unconsciousness" then I fail to see how your arguments allow for any termination of unconsciousness from, for example, a coma. Its more or less the same thing, except one can sometimes be reversed, the other - not so much.

[Fiyenyaa]

There seems to be nothing you are saying which cannot be explained by the brain being a totally physical entity, with all the flaws that come with that. You can lose and regain memories. So what?

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

There seems to be nothing you are saying which cannot be explained by the brain being a totally physical entity, with all the flaws that come with that. You can lose and regain memories. So what?

Because a jump in time perception occurs at the moment of memory loss... To avoid this jump, either the brain would have to retain memory in a conscious form forever (impossible), or that information would have to be transferred elsewhere in a different form.

A conscience after death, after-life, get it?

[Spiff]

Because a jump in time perception occurs at the moment of memory loss...

What memory loss? Subjectively dying is no different than being in a coma, the only thing lost is the ability to use your brain, not the brain itself; it isnt going anywhere in the short term - though in the long term it will decompose if not preserved.

Information is not "erased" at the moment of death, people can be revived in some cases, which would be impossible if your argument was true. Use the words "currently irretrievable" if you prefer.