Christof Koch - Is Life After Death Possible? 

Fascinating how they can talk about such a hypothetical subject like they were talking about their pet dog. Really impressive, like an eye that never blinks.

Real science is all in the mind.

Hello how have you been doing lately?

Is there life after birth is more like it. People have become zombielike, never thinking, emotional children, sad.

You don't respond to challenges, do you?

​@@johnnastrom9400people like him/her rarely do.

I feel consciousness has its own realm/space/dimension outside our 4 dimensions we live in. Our physical bodies are essentially vehicles our consciousness uses to experience the first 4 dimensions. Once it dies consciousness returns to its space and the cycle continues.

You could not be more wrong. Sedate the brain and one loses consciousness, halt the sedation and consciousness is regained. To say that consciousness is everywhere is to say that it's nowhere.

@@brudno1333 Actually you're still conscious while asleep or sedated. Otherwise you wouldn't ever wake up. Try again.

@@nahCmeR Actually, you're not conscious while asleep or sedated. If you were, the sedation was not effective. Ask a medical professional to clarify the issue for yourself.

@@brudno1333 What you call consciousness is wakefulness. Sedation does not change your self at all. Can’t even touch it. Consciousness is a concept way deeper than that. It is known for millennia as the grounds for experience. Your definition of consciousness is very poor and shallow.

But how is it determined which discrete instantiation you experience the universe as?

@@leomdk939 Nice question! I think every instantiation believes it is THE discrete instantiation experiencing the universe, when in reality, every one is. Each one will experience the universe from a different perspective, and with a history (memory) that diverges only from the point that they entered the tele-transporter. What determines the you that is instantiated now and not the you that will be instantiated tomorrow?

very interesting and i have been led to feel like quantum mechanics MUST play a role in consciousness for the reason that classical or newtonian mechanics are purely deterministic, while quantum mechanics are not.. so for that reason - IF we truly have free will which i feel we must - then that would suggest at least to me that quantum mechanics must play some role no?

BiGBird Records Christof Koch, Giulio Tononi, David Chalmers, Karl Friston and Antonio Damacio are the superforce behind the science of conscience!

I'm reading his book Liquid Consciousness and Shapes of the Substrate. Fantastic.

No there would be two separate consciousnesses each of which would be just as much you as you are now, but projected into the future. Why is this so hard to understand? I noticed Kuhn struggling with it in the video, but maybe he was just playing devil's advocate as he does sometimes.

I agree. Plus, eventually that computer would be ripped apart at the end of the universe with everything else, so you can't escape death with a computer.

And my question is When?

Well, from the way, I understand it, is that your self, the me, the part of you that makes you will be transferred. The only thing that will die is your body.

@@soundscapeproductions9173 My consciousness will die, too.

@@fraser_mr2009 that is if you don’t believe we have a soul. If you believe the brain functions purely through materialistic processes then it’s impossible. In that case there Is no “ME” that exists, just chemicals firing off in deterministic fashion

Nobody is claiming the brain is a computer. The claim is it might be possible to upload the brain to a computer. Also, we don’t know if regrowing an exact copy of your brain from a piece of it with the exact same nueral pathways, hormones etc. would be a different person.

@@kingwillie206 I think the way one phrases it is important: we won't be uploading our brain (or consciousness) to a computer, we would be copying it. There's an important difference.

Idk about that, our brain changes those too

And where would one copy the brain to? To really duplicate an existing brain, one would have to have a completely empty brain to which the subject brain would be copied. Good luck with all that. And, don't forget to copy the brain chemistry which is considered to be an integral part of the operation of the brain.

You will be you into a new family and in a different country perhaps.

How is that different from someone else being themself

Your soul is still you.

I know I don't. And neither do you. But you've confused us all. Now where am I?

Me to I want another person

László Horváth consciousness needs to be transferred not copied, which is possible to be achieved by the singularity in theory.

Why isn't having the experience of being you enough to be considered you?

David Walter that's a good question. But you see, the moment you create a copy of yourself it creates two versions of you. One is being the original you with the experience of creating a copy and the other being the copy of yourself which has all the experience you have been through up until the moment you have created a copy. So the copy is not you, it's more like a movie paused at certain point in time. Now after the creation of the copy, the copy could have its own experience(life) which could be different from the original version of yourself unless both of your consciousnesses are interconnected, in that way your copy becomes an extension of you. Two entities sharing a single consciousness.

@@DavidDW I don't see how that experience can be shared between individuals. If You copy me atom-by-atom, the copy will have the same memories, but will be a different person. He will be conscious. He will claim, that he is me. But there is just no way I see that this can be true.

Shut up and buy the book!

And then it degrades as "electronic life" after death.

You're just reducing it down to semantics. Yes, more could be said.

No, I'm laughing.

I feel the same way about Dr Parnia's work and it is unbelievable to me that we are not conducting more studies like the AWARE project ... how is "what happens when we die" somehow not the single most important question we could answer? Where we came from is even more mysterious, but what happens when you die is more important.

And your evidence for that is what?

You are right, consciousness has nothing to do with the physical realm and matters.

weird man, what are you smoking?

#bravo

And you know this because....?

That I agree with, I’ve lived several times. The same person, the same wife and children, different variations but all in all basically the same. I can’t think of anything else. The more I come to realize this at times it creeps me out. Death is scary, and noticeable when you do repeats. But, if it’s your consciousness that knows better, the possibility of correcting matters is always there. In a way I personally think it’s how we evolve to be better ourselves.

I’ve assumed that’s what makes sense the most also. U relive your life over and over till it’s the best version but u end up in your never ending life with all the places I’ve seen things I’ve experienced, if u didn’t see it u didn’t experience it. That’s why I should do awesome stuff and see a lot so u can have a lot to do forever in life…

@@ishikawa1338 There is absolutely no evidence for reincarnation nor afterlives. All that is, is wishful thinking for people who are too afraid to simply not exist anymore.

​​@@StaticBlasternd how are you 100% sure that's "wishful thinking" if you haven't got any evidence either? Makes sense, really🤣

I just hit snooze...

why is logically certain

it's not even logically possible

@@Yousab_Menisy how is it not logically possible

Becasue death means no life. The question is backwards. We know the answer that there is death after life and before we were born was death then life So maybe it goes death life death life repeat but know one knows how or what or if or why. Possible u just repeat your life over and over or u go into nothing ness forever However if u experience an ego death ull only understand what it’s like losing yourself

@@Yousab_Menisy eso nadie lo sabe

It's almost as if you weren't listening. Time is not infinite btw... You...die with your brain...period. Not what anyone hoped for...but there it is...better to know the truth than not.

So ok in this bodily resurrection, I guess I won't have a a digestive system as the process of eating food from my mouth to my anus is one of decomposition ie only a fallen world equals death/decay/decomposition. So this new body won't have most of the contents of my torso. I won't also need to pee for the same reason, I'd be self sustaining and again the notion of waste is contradictory to a resurrected world without sin leading to death / waste decay - so I won't have an organ that deals with liquid waste either. Oh and I'll be sexless like the angels - "neither married nor given in marriage" so genitals gone again too. I mean, why would I have any of these things that are utterly useless within a resurrected ETERNITY. Will I have a nose? I breath out carbon dioxide as a waste product of my body, which also contradicts the no sin equals no waste/decay/death hypothesis.

@Pasquino 0 Close your eyes and imagine nothing. Focus on the breath flowing in and out of you. Anything crosses your mind, disregard it. In absolute silent, empty blackness, this is the future. The present is made of the past and the future will be made of the preseng which is made of the past. But till it is made, till the present changes, there is no future. There is no past, the present is made of the past but is not the past. But we remember the past because it did happen and the present, including our menories, are the present made of the past.

Pasquino 0 you are thinking in the flesh. If indeed you become immortal through Christ Jesus, then no you won’t need sexual organs, however as in Genesis 6 angels were indeed capable of sexual reproduction, via their own will, and having children-although this was a sin against God. Also, Christ speaks of living water from which one will never thirst again. You and I cannot possibly comprehend the vastness of God or to even imagine an existence radically different from our earthly existence. This is entirely consistent with how NDE experiencers describe heaven. But ultimately we will have to wait and see. Again I look to first Corinthians : 35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. 42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man. 50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed- 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”[h]

@@redeemedchannel5580 you made very little effort to personally grapple with the issue, or defend your case. An assertion of 'you are thinking in the flesh' says nothing descriptive beyond your tribe. Truth must be able to be described rationally on some level. So please explain to me how / why OUR BODY SEEMS TO BE UTTERLY CONTINGENT TO A WORLD OF DECAY but in your view was designed to exist as a resurrected body eternally???

Pasquino 0 you have no clue what I’ve grappled with, nor how much time I’ve dedicated to understand spiritual issues, in as much as one can understand them. I know that they’re real and I’ve experienced irrefutable miracles through Christ. But I cannot rehash the fall for you nor the restoration of the Edenic plan on my little iPhone. This is a drawback of debating in a RU-vid comment section. You may want to read Dr. Michael Heiser’s “the unseen realm”. If your life experience (and I’m not saying it is because I don’t know you) is confined to what scientists think, then spiritual matters will always be foolishness to you, but science seems to be catching up these days. We know that they’re real, but the ultimate questions are untestable. That’s just the way it is.

Well, that’s not a bad assumption since that’s what the evidence strongly points towards.

@@kevinmm20 What "evidence" is this?

@@glynemartin Well to start, damaging certain parts of the brain prohibit conscious experience associated with that part of the brain. Conversely, stimulating certain parts of the brain can create a conscious experience associated with that part of the brain. The entire nature of consciousness is drastically altered if the brains function is changed with certain drugs.

@@kevinmm20 _"Well to start, damaging certain parts of the brain prohibit conscious experience associated with that part of the brain."_ This tells me that you have an incomplete understanding of the fullness of consciousness. The brain seems to be the organ that SHAPES HUMAN PERCEPTION...not necessarily the organ that generates or creates consciousness. Perception is not consciousness. So messing with the brain tissue will definitely alter and damage perception...but it will not destroy consciousness... _"The entire nature of consciousness is drastically altered if the brains function is changed with certain drugs."_ Again you lapse into what i think is a flawed philosophical model. The nature of PERCEPTION is altered. You would need to explain your idea of consciousness in its fullness...which includes the SUB-conscious...a reminder that in our English Language that the prefix "sub" does not mean "devoid of".... Just sayin'...

@@glynemartin If experience is not consciousness, then what are you even talking about?

I am not following you, how will we keep our counciousness after death if, as you said, thinking is a state of conciousness and if we are dead we can't think anymore?

@@napsec9807 thinking and expieriencing is different

the person, the I, lives forever. the body dies, but the awareness never dies.

@Bob Smith en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience

Agreed. Life after death is a fantastical notion for people who fear their own fate.

Afterlife is possible Coz you are energy Energy is eternal

What an amazing interview. I thought I was them.

When did QM describe consciousness at all? I may have missed the worldwide tickertape parade on the day we all learned to live forever, and chose to just destroy the world and be only for ourselves. Why would curiosity and communication occur after that day?

The double slit experiment scientifically prove that the consciousness can alter the result of the experiment.

@@lifeisshortpeace7783 The double slit experiment scientifically proves that the color black absorbs radiation. Nothing more.

@@ZeroOskul I think your never see the double slit experiment that show that particles behave like wave when unobserved. But when observed it behave like particles.up till now,scientists can't understand this.consciousness is what we are fundamentally. The solid world we see outside is an illusion.I work in a hospital and after some patients died,their spirit or consciousness still press the call bell and when we went into the room,nobody was inside.all these I experiencd it myself.

@@lifeisshortpeace7783 The pupil of your eye is black. Black absorbs radiation. Seeing is first drawing radiation into the eye. Observation changes the flow of radiation as you see it. Observation is not "consciousness intuiting reality", it's just the non-color black absorbs radiation.

No need the clothes in heaven are silk and much more beautiful and comfortable.

He's not an idiot. If it's an illusion, prove it. It's all well and good as a theory, but since brain science is a science, I'd like for this illusion to be proven. The brain does do trickery, even to it's holder. But this is not found at all. No scientist has ever found that a few seconds ago, you are a different person, only held together from experiences. Nobody has ever found that. Even in the more computer like part of your mind, the subconscious, it doesn't produce an illusion to believe in it itself. That's simply impossible.

@@kenechewkuk.l8707 I wouldn't assume he's an idiot. It doesn't take an idiot to miss the distinction I was attempting to point out. The illusory self that I'm referring to is essentially the idea of a soul, where there is a separate entity riding around in our bodies and controlling the brain that we call "I". A core "you" that is always there from moment to moment. In light of this, I was saying that it appeared that Christof and the interviewer were "speaking past each other" by assuming a different concept of self. In regards to proving it, it's really just the culmination of all that has been learned within brain science (including our evolution and physics) that makes the classical concept of self as incoherent. I wouldn't claim you're a completely different person from a few seconds ago and I don't think most people in the field of neuroscience would claim that either, but given your physical state has changed, leading to different conscious states arising from moment to moment, we can't say we're the EXACT same person from moments ago. It becomes a matter of how you want to define a "person". From a practical point of view, you are essentially the same person though. The main point of contention though is with regard to a core "you" that is carried forward from moment to moment that exists in addition to each new conscious state.

@@kevinmm20 A soul (if it existed) would need to be aware or conscious to be worth anything. If it has no awareness whatsoever..it's totally inconsequential. So Consciousness would be by necessity, a more fundamental reality than "soul". In that case...where did the "soul" get its consciousness/awareness? If the soul is immaterial and has zero dimensions...why the assumption that the "soul" resides INSIDE the physical? Why is not the reverse? why is the (finite/limited) physical not within the dimensionless non-physical? What limits (measurements) can you apply to TRUE dimensionless-ness? What if the "soul" drops or lets go of the corporeal form...and it's actually the body that is formed (from conception), grows, dies and dissolves WITHIN the dimensionless "soul"? Why do we think the "soul" goes anywhere in the first place? Maybe It's the body that comes and goes. ??? If there was such a thing as the soul...i'd rather think that it "surrounded" the physical and not within it. To fit an "immaterial soul" within a physical body, ...give it (tacitly assumed) finite dimensions and boundaries and limit it to the physical is illogical if that IDEA is really put under scrutiny...and i'd SERIOUSLY like to know where the hell this asinine idea of "fitting" the dimensionless into the (finite) physical came from anyways... This "soul within a body" model comes over to me as a kinda straw-man argument to dismiss what COULD BE a totally misunderstood phenomenon, and should be rejected by those who buy into the idea of Soul. A lot more thought would need to be put into The Imperceptible less a baseless philosophical model makes it totally ludicrous. Just sayin'...

@@glynemartin The idea of the soul to me is gratuitous.

@@kevinmm20 _"The idea of the soul to me is gratuitous."_ That is NOT the point. So does its existence depend on being gratuitous to you or not? I don't think your opinion determines reality any more than mine does... If the idea has been misrepresented, it lends itself to total dismissal. I don't speak in terms of soul either...but i don't totally dismiss what MIGHT BE a misunderstood phenomenon...

Not really. The awkwardness we feel when imagining two bodies is real only if our consciousnesses were two. But if we start with the assumption that conciousness is the fundamental source or unit of experience then no matter how many bodies share the same conciousness it will all be a unified experience by a single observer. The absurdity in thinking what it would feel like is not a problem of conciousness but instead is a limitation of our brain. Imagine instead of two eyes you had an extra 2 eyes in the back of your head. What would you "see" is an unimaginable question but is a problem of evolution and not of conciousness. It doesn't even matter if the two bodies even aren't physically connected if it's the same "flavour" of conciousness then there's only one experience not two.

If you drive a car, you are operating your body to operate the car. You are not using psychic powers to bypass your body and only being your car. You okay?

@@ZeroOskul I once tapped into eternal consciousness. It's an awful thought. Thinking forever and no more. Truly awful. But then, consciousness is the horror at the heart of all things. And we will never escape it. If you drive a car, that's not going to help at all.

@@OnceTheyNamedMeiWasnt You have never tapped into eternal consciousness. If you had you wouldn't need to communicate you would just know everything and everything and everyone would be part of your consciousness. Thinking forever you must know everything, you must know that you did not know everything forever. Consciousness, not conscious, and no it isn't. If you drive your car your brain is operating your body to operate your car. You are not using psychic powers to bypass your body and only being as your car. You okay?

With the cool logic of your explanation, I am finally lucid again. These glimpses into the nefarious horror behind the veil are mere illusions of a puppet. Thank you for your kind words. Are you okay?

Got scientific evidence?

@@rosarioelenes9668 do you have evidence debunking my claim?

@@rosarioelenes9668 this "scientist" had no more evidence than I can present. You believe him why? Because he is in a video?

Indeed😀

@@rosarioelenes9668 Yes But You'll Claim It To Be A Fallacy Even Though It's As Irrefutable As The Moon Landing.

He doesn't, but you could email him directly and ask.

What does non-local consciousness mean?

@@ataraxia7439 It means your thinking is further away than the 24/7 store on the corner. Probably that you consciousness is in the next State, or perhaps the State beyond that. It's a relatively hard concept to explain, but I think I've managed it.

@@ataraxia7439 Non local consciousness means your brain operating independent of your brain. It's where your consciousness leaves your body and you still have sight, hearing and reasoning ability. It happens a lot during near death experiences.

@@sampleowner6677 Well, never actually proven of course. They may have had moments of some awareness (in their body), combined that with a dream of thinking they are watching it from above for instance, and it sounds very impressive but could be a perfectly feasible physical explanation.

not weird. it's a popular scifi trope, especially in the 'cyberpunk' genre.

@@dumpsky Im gona have to play that game

@@MrBlues113 it's in there to a certain extent. it's more prominent in the novel 'altered carbon' which is also a somewhat ok tv mini series.

Where is the scientific evidence?

@@rosarioelenes9668 Have you never heard (read) about Near Death Experiences ? Much to learn should you desire to.

But it won't be MY consciousness. I'm still going to blank out.

@@fraser_mr2009 Thats right, it would be an exact (robotic) clone of you.

Well that would depend on the law, and that is entirely human thing, which needs to be mulled over by lots of guys in old whigs.

But my stupid idea's mine! Are you sure it's just as invalid as anybody else's stupid ideas?(j/k)