So what happens when death comes?

[David B]

And what makes you think as you do?

For myself, I view the self as a construct of the brain, rather than some magical thing that is not grounded in, at the deepest level of reduction, physics.

And hence I take the view that when the brain ceases to function, the self simply ceases to be.

A view which can be expressed more poetically.


Oh, threats of Hell and Hopes of Paradise!
One thing at least is certain--This Life flies;
One thing is certain and the rest is Lies;
The Flower that once has blown for ever dies.

David B (rather likes the ROK)

[Izmir Stinger]

I was dead for fourteen and a half billion years before I was even alive, and I suffered not the least inconvenience from it.

[Garrett]

No you weren't. Try using a dictionary. :)

[LoneWolf]

No you weren't. Try using a dictionary. :)

It amounts to the same though. What it felt like before I was born…that is what it will feel like after I die.

Still, I find myself wondering about it sometimes. I just count myself lucky that I am one of the precious few clumps of matter that got to experience consciousness, even if it was only for an infinitesimally small amount of time.

[Garrett]

I don't think its that simple. A clump of neurons creates your mind, who knows what a bunch of minds create.

[dancer_rnb]

I don't think its that simple. A clump of neurons creates your mind, who knows what a bunch of minds create.

Bullshit?

Ungrounded speculation?

[LoneWolf]

I don't think its that simple. A clump of neurons creates your mind, who knows what a bunch of minds create.

But we can play "who knows" and "what if" all day. To my knowledge there is no evidence that a bunch of minds creates anything.

I am assuming you are referring to some higher level of consiousness.

[BWE]

I assume that consciousness as an emergent property can emerge at other scales. Ants and anthills are different critters.

But, in terms of the OP, I'll let you know if I can.

[Goodchild]

Though I imagine that there's nothing to come after death I kind of hope there is ... consciousness has been such a blast that it'd suck for it to end, personally.

[Febble]

And what makes you think as you do?

For myself, I view the self as a construct of the brain, rather than some magical thing that is not grounded in, at the deepest level of reduction, physics.

And hence I take the view that when the brain ceases to function, the self simply ceases to be.

A view which can be expressed more poetically.



David B (rather likes the ROK)

Except as recreated by other brains....

[David B]

Except as recreated by other brains....

There is, I think, a tenuous sense in which we might be said to live on through the memories in other brains, though our DNA if we have children, and through our works.

But our brains will know nothing of this, nothing at all.

David

[Ray Moscow]

This seems to be the most reasonable assumption.

As finite, mortal -- i.e., real -- beings, we have our few years or decades here, and that's it. That's not so bad, considering the infinite number who didn't get the chance to be here at all.

[dancer_rnb]

There is, I think, a tenuous sense in which we might be said to live on through the memories in other brains, though our DNA if we have children, and through our works.

But our brains will know nothing of this, nothing at all.

David

I think women do literally live on through their ova that develop and may manage to reproduce, producing a life that potentially never ends. I don't think it is the case for men, since the sperm seem to die during fertilization.

[Eudaimonist]

For myself, I view the self as a construct of the brain, rather than some magical thing that is not grounded in, at the deepest level of reduction, physics.

You don't need to be a reductionist to take this view. I am profoundly anti-reductionism, and yet I view the emergent property that is consciousness to be something that does not continue in any form after death.

But this is complicated by my view that consciousness is not a continuous phenomenon anyway -- it never really continues during life. In a sense, we die and are reborn every moment.

The only difference at brain death is that the information that gave content to our "selves" is lost, and so you should remember to back up your "self" every few minutes!

Oh, wait. The tech doesn't exist for that yet. Oh, well. Get involved with cryonics. :D

Even though one's "self" doesn't continue after death, barring information storage techniques such as cryonics, the conscious vantagepoints of others do continue to come into existence. It is virtually no consolation, but if you do not actually "own" your awareness, but come into existence as awareness, then maybe one does find continuance after death in other people. Well, in theory.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Febble]

There is, I think, a tenuous sense in which we might be said to live on through the memories in other brains, though our DNA if we have children, and through our works.

But our brains will know nothing of this, nothing at all.

David

Our brains will produce no knowing after they are gone. But while they are working, they produce knowings of other minds, and after they are gone, other brains produce knowings of our minds.

[Brianna]

When death comes, your body rattles, you can't talk, your breathing slows, your heart stops working correctly, your toe nails turn blue, and you slowly stop. Then you are dead.

I still believe in souls after watching many people die in the hospice I worked in. I just can't tell you where souls go because I don't really believe in heaven.

[BioBeing]

Our brains will produce no knowing after they are gone. But while they are working, they produce knowings of other minds, and after they are gone, other brains produce knowings of our minds.

Trivially true, and so therefore meaningless. My computer screen produces knowings in my mind, but if you try to tell me my monitor is alive, I'll laugh at you.


Ha ha ha. See, just like that :p

[BioBeing]

I still believe in souls after watching many people die in the hospice I worked in.

May I ask why? (I have never seen anyone die.)

[Goldie]

I believe that when you are dead... that is the end, because nothing convinces me otherwise. However, I really don't know. My heart has stopped twice, but not my brain. There really is no way for anyone to truly know until they die.

But, I'm not betting the farm on an afterlife. Best to "live" now. :)

[Brianna]

May I ask why? (I have never seen anyone die.)

You may. Because it just feels so oddly when you hold someones hand when all of their energy passes out of their body. Their cells no longer vibrate and hum, their hearts no longer pumps, their lungs no longer breath.

Maybe it is my inability to let go that creates this but indeed it feels like it should go some where.

[Goldie]

I love this song from the animated movie Meet The Robinsons

I highly recommend the movie. It's a kid's movie, but great for adults, too.

This song sums up what I feel about life and death:

Little Wonders - Rob Thomas

let it go,
let it roll right off your shoulder
don't you know
the hardest part is over
let it in,
let your clarity define you
in the end
we will only just remember how it feels

our lives are made
in these small hours
these little wonders,
these twists & turns of fate
time falls away,
but these small hours,
these small hours still remain

let it slide,
let your troubles fall behind you
let it shine
until you feel it all around you
and i don't mind
if it's me you need to turn to
we?ll get by,
it's the heart that really matters in the end

our lives are made
in these small hours
these little wonders,
these twists & turns of fate
time falls away,
but these small hours,
these small hours still remain

all of my regret
will wash away some how
but i can not forget
the way i feel right now

in these small hours
these little wonders
these twists & turns of fate
these twists & turns of fate
time falls away but these small hours
these small hours, still remain,
still remain
these little wonders
these twists & turns of fate
time falls away
but these small hours
these little wonders still remain

ETA: The music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsT2URr1Igc

[Pendaric]

I think the most probable answer is that you just cease to be, but I'll admit to being more open to possibilities on this than I would be on areas of theism.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that. And I think that there is a tremendous lack of evidence because of the nature of the subject.

There are also a lot of philosophical questions raised about what the nature of self really is.

I am not the same person I was 20 years ago - I am physically different, I have many different attitudes and philosophies, some of the things I remembered then I do not remember now, and so forth. In many senses, the person I was 20 years ago is dead.

If something like re-incarnation should occur, but you have no continuity of memory, then in a sense it wouldn't really be you anyway.

[Christina]

Because it just feels so oddly when you hold someones hand when all of their energy passes out of their body. Their cells no longer vibrate and hum, their hearts no longer pumps, their lungs no longer breath.

Maybe it is my inability to let go that creates this but indeed it feels like it should go some where.

I've held the hand of several people (that weren't very close to me) as they died and I know that feeling that you mean, I think. To me it felt like energy dissipating, not like something that was going somewhere. It's such a painful and emotionally charged moment that is in some way peaceful and beautiful at the same time that I gave my mind all the leeway it wanted to experience it whatever way it felt. To be honest, the idea of an afterlife for them would have felt creepy to me as the last person that had seen and touched them when they were alive. Maybe it's different when they're a loved one.

[Brianna]

I've held the hand of several people (that weren't very close to me) as they died and I know that feeling that you mean, I think. To me it felt like energy dissipating, not like something that was going somewhere. It's such a painful and emotionally charged moment that is in some way peaceful and beautiful at the same time that I gave my mind all the leeway it wanted to experience it whatever way it felt. To be honest, the idea of an afterlife for them would have felt creepy to me as the last person that had seen and touched them when they were alive. Maybe it's different when they're a loved one.

It does feel like it is dissipating but science shows us that energy does not dissipate, it is passed on. It feels like it should go some where. I am not sure that it does.

[Pendaric]

It does feel like it is dissipating but science shows us that energy does not dissipate, it is passed on. It feels like it should go some where. I am not sure that it does.

I'm quite sure that all the energy that leaves your body can be accounted for in terms of heat going in to the atmosphere, or something else equally mundane.

[Brianna]

I'm quite sure that all the energy that leaves your body can be accounted for in terms of heat going in to the atmosphere, or something else equally mundane.

What Christina said about it. I am sure it could be too. It just an intresting process from going from Live to dead.

[Christina]

To be honest, I never tried to process it much in an intellectual way. It's the kind of moment to me that's profound enough all as it is without trying to put it into a rational context. It's strange when it's the passing of someone that isn't going to affect your life in any significant way because you end up thinking about death more abstractly than in terms of personally grieving. In the context of homeless people dying alone, the less you think about it afterward, the better.

[Ray Moscow]

We naturally "feel" like a dead person who we were close to is still around, at least for a while. It's just a natural point of view, with no need to suppose there is any insubstantial soul to account for it.

This SciAm article last year described this phenomenon: Never Say Die: Why We Can't Imagine Death (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=never-say-die)

[Goldie]

One is so used to seeing something in a certain way, that it's often difficult not to see it anymore.

When I was 8 yrs old, I saw my dead father and thought he was breathing. I panicked because, DAMMIT! they were going to bury him and he was still breathing!!!

My poor mom had to convince me that it was my imagination.
It was so sad. I just wanted them all to be wrong. :(

[Mediancat]

The worms crawl in
The worms crawl out
The worms play pinochle in your snout

Seriously, though, while I believe it's simple nonexistence, I have to say the prospect does scare me. I like existing.

Rob

[Brianna]

We naturally "feel" like a dead person who we were close to is still around, at least for a while. It's just a natural point of view, with no need to suppose there is any insubstantial soul to account for it.

This SciAm article last year described this phenomenon: Never Say Die: Why We Can't Imagine Death (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=never-say-die)

See. This is where atheists start to sound like not caring bastards :)

Cause why would you NOT care about how I feel? :D

I am not serious in this post.

[Febble]

Trivially true, and so therefore meaningless. My computer screen produces knowings in my mind, but if you try to tell me my monitor is alive, I'll laugh at you.


Ha ha ha. See, just like that :p

I think it is more than trivially true. I think our brains largely see things from a single Point of View. But they are also capable of seeing things as though from other Points of View - so we can see through someone else's eyes, from their point of view, we can, to some extent, feel their pain. This is not just metaphorical - we know the kinds of neural systems that are responsible (e.g. mirror neurons). So we are not limited to a single PoV. Sometimes I look at my son "through my mother's eyes" (she died when he was four, and he's fifteen now.

As Hofstadter said about his small daughter's birthday, which his wife didn't live to see - he wanted to see it "for Carol" - as she would have seen it, had she lived. And to a crude extent he could do that, because he knew her, and understood her point of view.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

Well, we have a nice spot of tea, talk about the weather and the footies for a bit, then I'm off.

[Goldie]

I think it is more than trivially true. I think our brains largely see things from a single Point of View. But they are also capable of seeing things as though from other Points of View - so we can see through someone else's eyes, from their point of view, we can, to some extent, feel their pain. This is not just metaphorical - we know the kinds of neural systems that are responsible (e.g. mirror neurons). So we are not limited to a single PoV. Sometimes I look at my son "through my mother's eyes" (she died when he was four, and he's fifteen now.

As Hofstadter said about his small daughter's birthday, which his wife didn't live to see - he wanted to see it "for Carol" - as she would have seen it, had she lived. And to a crude extent he could do that, because he knew her, and understood her point of view.

That's cool. I do that. I see my son and my granddaughter through my parent's eyes. When I see technology, I imagine what my mother would have thought of it all....having gone into a coma in '81.

[Cath B]

I still believe in souls after watching many people die in the hospice I worked in. I just can't tell you where souls go because I don't really believe in heaven.

A friend of mine is a nurse in a care home for the elderly.

She likes to open the window after a death to "let the soul out", though her thoughts on a possible afterlife seem fuzzy.

I guess rituals such of these help to give the minds of folk still living something to focus on.

[Oolon Colluphid]

I am not the same person I was 20 years ago - I am physically different, I have many different attitudes and philosophies, some of the things I remembered then I do not remember now, and so forth. In many senses, the person I was 20 years ago is dead.
That's even more true than you may realise. You are physically different to the point that there's probably not a single atom in your body now that was in it 20 years ago.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Seriously, though, while I believe it's simple nonexistence, I have to say the prospect does scare me. I like existing.

If it's nonexistence, there's nothing to be scared of, since you won't notice -- it's not like you'll be sitting around thinking "oh, I wish I still existed" :D

Nah, the thing to be scared of is the process of getting to that point.

[DMB]

That's even more true than you may realise. You are physically different to the point that there's probably not a single atom in your body now that was in it 20 years ago.

The curious thing is the survival of memories. Febble, can you tell us anything about this?

I remember at the age of about 13 sitting in a car driving through colonial Singapore and making a mental effort to remember the scene as though I were a film camera. When I returned to Singapore for the first time almost 30 years later, I was driven down the same street, which had changed almost out of recognition. When I visited a further 20 years later, it was beyond recognition. Only the street names survived. Now that orignal memory is still there, although it's definitely getting pretty tatty. And that Singapore of more than 50 years ago has long ceased to exist, but it still has a ghostly presence in my mind. How does this work within the brain?

[Pendaric]

That's even more true than you may realise. You are physically different to the point that there's probably not a single atom in your body now that was in it 20 years ago.

I've heard that your body is completely regenerated over a period of 7 years. Not sure if that's true or just a nice soundbite.

But again, it throws up the question of what actually constitutes a person, when the body changes totally, the memories can change or be lost, and philosophies and attitudes can change.

[Cath B]

The curious thing is the survival of memories. Febble, can you tell us anything about this?

I remember at the age of about 13 sitting in a car driving through colonial Singapore and making a mental effort to remember the scene as though I were a film camera. When I returned to Singapore for the first time almost 30 years later, I was driven down the same street, which had changed almost out of recognition. When I visited a further 20 years later, it was beyond recognition. Only the street names survived. Now that orignal memory is still there, although it's definitely getting pretty tatty. And that Singapore of more than 50 years ago has long ceased to exist, but it still has a ghostly presence in my mind. How does this work within the brain?

Perhaps it makes some kind of sense if you think of a memory as a wave or pattern within the neuron network rather than the neurons themselves.

[Febble]

The curious thing is the survival of memories. Febble, can you tell us anything about this?

I remember at the age of about 13 sitting in a car driving through colonial Singapore and making a mental effort to remember the scene as though I were a film camera. When I returned to Singapore for the first time almost 30 years later, I was driven down the same street, which had changed almost out of recognition. When I visited a further 20 years later, it was beyond recognition. Only the street names survived. Now that orignal memory is still there, although it's definitely getting pretty tatty. And that Singapore of more than 50 years ago has long ceased to exist, but it still has a ghostly presence in my mind. How does this work within the brain?

Well, my working model is that memories are, essentially, motor programs that trigger activation of the neurons that would have been activated had you executed that action at that time. When you remember something, a complex series of motor programs is activated (but mostly not executed) that trigger a re-enactment of the "memory", or rather recreates the sensations (in attenuated form) that you had at the time (or imagine you would be having, if you were back then, now...). In other words, I think we can understand memory better if we think about how perception works, because perception itself is constructed, and we live in a "Remembered Present" (Edelman's term). We don't actually see the visual scene we think we see - we construct it on a Need to Know basis, eye movement by eye movement. I think we do the same when we recall a scene, except that the motor output is probably kept at sub-execution threshold.

Does that make any sense?

An analogy I sometimes draw is of a musical instrument. I have a very old and beautiful viola da gamba (circa 1690) that has been played, probably continuously, since it was built, and is fantastically resonant. I think of the belly as having the memory of all the music that has been played on it stored within it. And that isn't being fanciful - every time a string instrument is played the belly folds, essentially, and so every time it is folded in a particular way, it is more apt to fold the same way, even with a less forceful bow stroke, next time. And so, lucky me, when I play a note, the instrument responds in the way it has "learned" to respond over three hundred years, and is "remembering" how to produce the note in the way that its earliest players must have insisted on playing it, when it would have been much stiffer and harder to play.

BTW it seems to be true, in my experience, that a new instrument becomes better, quicker, if played by a player who plays it well, than if played by a player who plays it badly.

[BioBeing]

I think it is more than trivially true. I think our brains largely see things from a single Point of View. But they are also capable of seeing things as though from other Points of View - so we can see through someone else's eyes, from their point of view, we can, to some extent, feel their pain. This is not just metaphorical - we know the kinds of neural systems that are responsible (e.g. mirror neurons). So we are not limited to a single PoV. Sometimes I look at my son "through my mother's eyes" (she died when he was four, and he's fifteen now.

As Hofstadter said about his small daughter's birthday, which his wife didn't live to see - he wanted to see it "for Carol" - as she would have seen it, had she lived. And to a crude extent he could do that, because he knew her, and understood her point of view.

That's not what mirror neurons are. If I see my Grandmother, a neuron fires. When I think about my grandmother, that same neuron fires. That is a mirror neuron. What you are talking about is empathy. You do not become the other person - or have them "live in you" - you merely imagine how they would see something.

[BWE]

BTW it seems to be true, in my experience, that a new instrument becomes better, quicker, if played by a player who plays it well, than if played by a player who plays it badly.

Well, that may have something to do with the player, wouldn't you think?

A while back I was invited to 'jam' with a rock band to do one of my brother's original songs rock and roll style. I played an electric guitar in proper drunken fashion, trying to play the way I imagined rock music should sound. The song basically has one chord so it was one really long improv in Dm pentatonic.

Well I had a great time, getting looped and making the guitar sound like screaming animals, chose the fuzziest distortion I could find and everything. Then I went home. I got a recording of it emailed to me a bit later. Now I wonder if I ruined the instrument. I could post the song for laughs and maybe you could say a prayer for the poor guitar.

[Febble]

That's not what mirror neurons are. If I see my Grandmother, a neuron fires. When I think about my grandmother, that same neuron fires. That is a mirror neuron. What you are talking about is empathy. You do not become the other person - or have them "live in you" - you merely imagine how they would see something.


Well, a mirror neuron is a neuron that is active when you see someone doing something that you might do, and is also active when you do it.

So they are relevant to empathy. But they are really important for learning by imitation.

[Goldie]

Well, my working model is that memories are, essentially, motor programs that trigger activation of the neurons that would have been activated had you executed that action at that time. When you remember something, a complex series of motor programs is activated (but mostly not executed) that trigger a re-enactment of the "memory", or rather recreates the sensations (in attenuated form) that you had at the time (or imagine you would be having, if you were back then, now...). In other words, I think we can understand memory better if we think about how perception works, because perception itself is constructed, and we live in a "Remembered Present" (Edelman's term). We don't actually see the visual scene we think we see - we construct it on a Need to Know basis, eye movement by eye movement. I think we do the same when we recall a scene, except that the motor output is probably kept at sub-execution threshold.

Does that make any sense?

An analogy I sometimes draw is of a musical instrument. I have a very old and beautiful viola da gamba (circa 1690) that has been played, probably continuously, since it was built, and is fantastically resonant. I think of the belly as having the memory of all the music that has been played on it stored within it. And that isn't being fanciful - every time a string instrument is played the belly folds, essentially, and so every time it is folded in a particular way, it is more apt to fold the same way, even with a less forceful bow stroke, next time. And so, lucky me, when I play a note, the instrument responds in the way it has "learned" to respond over three hundred years, and is "remembering" how to produce the note in the way that its earliest players must have insisted on playing it, when it would have been much stiffer and harder to play.

BTW it seems to be true, in my experience, that a new instrument becomes better, quicker, if played by a player who plays it well, than if played by a player who plays it badly.

That is a beautiful sentiment.
The same could be said of training an animal...say, breaking a horse.

[Febble]

Well, that may have something to do with the player, wouldn't you think?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. An instrument played by a good player will become a better instrument than one played by a poor player. At least acoustic stringed instruments - the soundboard effectively "remembers" the way it has been played, and is more likely to vibrate in that pattern. Just like a brain.

A while back I was invited to 'jam' with a rock band to do one of my brother's original songs rock and roll style. I played an electric guitar in proper drunken fashion, trying to play the way I imagined rock music should sound. The song basically has one chord so it was one really long improv in Dm pentatonic.

Well I had a great time, getting looped and making the guitar sound like screaming animals, chose the fuzziest distortion I could find and everything. Then I went home. I got a recording of it emailed to me a bit later. Now I wonder if I ruined the instrument. I could post the song for laughs and maybe you could say a prayer for the poor guitar.

I'm not sure it would be true for an electric guitar :)

[Goldie]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. An instrument played by a good player will become a better instrument than one played by a poor player. At least acoustic stringed instruments - the soundboard effectively "remembers" the way it has been played, and is more likely to vibrate in that pattern. Just like a brain.



I'm not sure it would be true for an electric guitar :)

But... we don't get to "play" other people's brains.

[Febble]

But... we don't get to "play" other people's brains.

My post was in response to DMB's question about how memory works. I think it works by making the pattern of activity triggered by something or other more likely to be triggered on another occasion by something similar. So the pattern of activity that occurs when you see a red apple on a green plate is more likely to be triggered next time you see a red apple - and you will "remember" the green plate part because that will be triggered too.

We do, though, sort of get to "play" other people's brains in that when we see other people doing things, parts of our brains that we would use if we did the same thing are triggered. And those sympathetic activations are probably implicated in higher order functions such as empathy. That's why I mentioned "mirror neurons".

[Uthgar the Brazen]

But... we don't get to "play" other people's brains.

Not yet.....

[BioBeing]

Well, a mirror neuron is a neuron that is active when you see someone doing something that you might do, and is also active when you do it.

So they are relevant to empathy. But they are really important for learning by imitation.

And have nothing to do with life after death. Nothing. So totally irrelevant to this discussion. Irrelevant.



Do you like he way I highlighted the key words by repeating them? Highlighted.

[Febble]

And have nothing to do with life after death. Nothing. So totally irrelevant to this discussion. Irrelevant.



Do you like he way I highlighted the key words by repeating them? Highlighted.

My post was a response to this one by DMB:

The curious thing is the survival of memories. Febble, can you tell us anything about this?

I remember at the age of about 13 sitting in a car driving through colonial Singapore and making a mental effort to remember the scene as though I were a film camera. When I returned to Singapore for the first time almost 30 years later, I was driven down the same street, which had changed almost out of recognition. When I visited a further 20 years later, it was beyond recognition. Only the street names survived. Now that orignal memory is still there, although it's definitely getting pretty tatty. And that Singapore of more than 50 years ago has long ceased to exist, but it still has a ghostly presence in my mind. How does this work within the brain?

I agree that it was somewhat tangential to the OP.

However, I'd say only somewhat tangential, because the although the OP only asks "What happens when death comes?" not "What happens to me when death comes?" the second is a reasonable interpretation.

And as I happen to think that the thing I call "me" and "I" is, essentially, a point-of-view - in fact a travelling point-of-view, the point-of-view from which the trajectory through time and space taken by the pattern of matter sitting here at this keyboard, I'd say it was also to some extent the point-of-view taken when other people try to take it - when they construct the world from my point-of-view. And when I construct it from theirs.

So, to paraphrase Hofstadter, our brains are not, in fact, limited to the point-of-view we privilege by the pronoun "I" but also, crudely, host to other points-of-view - to other selves. When I die, my point-of-view will be pretty well gone, because my brain wont be doing any more travelling through time and space. However, it won't be completely gone. The world will not entirely cease to see itself from the point-of-view of that particular clump of matter. For a while, anyway.

[DMB]

One of the problems of any concept of life after death is which "you" survives. You may have been at the height of your intellectual powers when young, but most people die when old, although one hopes that by then they will have accumulated experience and wisdom. But if you survive as you were when last alive, what hope for dementia sufferers? If you have been around someone with dementia, you will know how much of the personality simply disappears. So much of who we are is bound up in our memories. That's why I brought up this question of memory.

[Febble]

One of the problems of any concept of life after death is which "you" survives. You may have been at the height of your intellectual powers when young, but most people die when old, although one hopes that by then they will have accumulated experience and wisdom. But if you survive as you were when last alive, what hope for dementia sufferers? If you have been around someone with dementia, you will know how much of the personality simply disappears. So much of who we are is bound up in our memories. That's why I brought up this question of memory.

Right.

That's why I tend to think of the self as a continuous series of "states". When the series ends, the self ends. Except that is only an approximation, because our states are not simply products our our own decision-making - they are also a function of other people. So there is a real sense in which our selves also exist in other people, and they in us. And those series will go on. The ripples of our selves extend beyond ourselves, and continue after our deaths.

That's not as metaphorical as it sounds :)

[Eudaimonist]

So, to paraphrase Hofstadter, our brains are not, in fact, limited to the point-of-view we privilege by the pronoun "I" but also, crudely, host to other points-of-view - to other selves. When I die, my point-of-view will be pretty well gone, because my brain wont be doing any more travelling through time and space. However, it won't be completely gone. The world will not entirely cease to see itself from the point-of-view of that particular clump of matter. For a while, anyway.

Unfortunately, other people see my point of view... from their point of view. We can only simulate other people's cognitive orientations to a very small, and highly imperfect, degree.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Febble]

One of the problems of any concept of life after death is which "you" survives. You may have been at the height of your intellectual powers when young, but most people die when old, although one hopes that by then they will have accumulated experience and wisdom. But if you survive as you were when last alive, what hope for dementia sufferers? If you have been around someone with dementia, you will know how much of the personality simply disappears. So much of who we are is bound up in our memories. That's why I brought up this question of memory.

Unfortunately, other people see my point of view... from their point of view. We can only simulate other people's cognitive orientations to a very small, and highly imperfect, degree.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Of course. But I suggest that what we do when we construct other people's point-of-view is not terribly different to what we do when we construct our own. The inputs are much cruder, of course, but the construction process is similar.

And, indeed we often ourselves take more than one point of view, at different times. We can look at a question from one "angle", then from another. We do this all the time. We are an amazing species, and, unlike most other species, have the capacity to transport ourselves to a different - even an imaginary - point of view.

Simulating is what we do. It's how we think. It's why we are able to plan, empathise, plot, control, anticipate, decide.

[Christina]

One of the problems of any concept of life after death is which "you" survives. You may have been at the height of your intellectual powers when young, but most people die when old, although one hopes that by then they will have accumulated experience and wisdom. But if you survive as you were when last alive, what hope for dementia sufferers?

At the height of being sick before I was diagnosed, the "kill yourself" drum was beating so loud in my head that I couldn't think about anything else. For me there was no reason other than a chemical imbalance but I didn't know that then. I can remember asking myself one point when the urge was overwhelming "What if they're right, and what if I spend forever this way?". The thought of spending eternity feeling the way that I did right then was so horrible that it helped me fend off the constant demand in my mind for a little while. Given the cruelty in the OT, it wouldn't surprise me if their god picked the worst moments of your life to die so that you would be miserable forever.

[sohy]

I've seen people die. Most of them are very old and very frail and many suffer from dementia. The ones that suffer from dementia lost any identity of self long before the body died. While dementia is a sad and difficult disease, I find it fascinating. It's as everything that makes one a person with an identity simply melts away leaving only an empty shell.

I see no reason to believe in any after life although I've read that it's hard for people to truly imagine not existing. The mind, self, soul or whatever you want to call it is just a function of the physical brain. You can romanticize it all you like, but when you're dead, you're done. It's just kind of hard to wrap our brains around that while we're still alive. There was an interesting article about this very thing in the most recent issue of Scientific American Mind.

[LoneWolf]

I've read that it's hard for people to truly imagine not existing.

Sure, because to imagine anything you have to use your thought processes, something you won't be doing when you are actually dead.

[Goldie]

I've seen people die. Most of them are very old and very frail and many suffer from dementia. The ones that suffer from dementia lost any identity of self long before the body died. While dementia is a sad and difficult disease, I find it fascinating. It's as everything that makes one a person with an identity simply melts away leaving only an empty shell.

I see no reason to believe in any after life although I've read that it's hard for people to truly imagine not existing. The mind, self, soul or whatever you want to call it is just a function of the physical brain. You can romanticize it all you like, but when you're dead, you're done. It's just kind of hard to wrap our brains around that while we're still alive. There was an interesting article about this very thing in the most recent issue of Scientific American Mind.

I worked with a woman who suffered from alzheimers. She existed a in "hell" that I hope none of us ever do.
She was gang raped as a teen and relived that several times a day...for years!
I spent a lot of time with her...telling her that 'it was okay. it's just us girls, now.'

Oh, I think any idea of a god or afterlife that I might have had left, flew out the window right about then.
Sometime life is such a monster...and death such a relief.:(

[Cath B]

And, indeed we often ourselves take more than one point of view, at different times. We can look at a question from one "angle", then from another. We do this all the time.

Sorry, I'm getting more off-topic.

Do some folk do this more than others? I feel as if I do and it drives me crazy sometimes.

[sohy]

I worked with a woman who suffered from alzheimers. She existed a in "hell" that I hope none of us ever do.
She was gang raped as a teen and relived that several times a day...for years!
I spent a lot of time with her...telling her that 'it was okay. it's just us girls, now.'

She had this experience when she suffered from dementia? I've never had a client that experienced anything like that. Perhaps she had some type of PTSD from the earlier rape, and the dementia exacerbated it. That's really sad. I can't think of any of my clients that ever suffered from anything like that. Some have bouts of agitation but most respond well to the meds we have these days. Still, it's pretty dreadful for many of them. Others seem pretty content and have no adverse behavioral symptoms.

In some ways it's even worse on the families. I do well with my clients but if it were my own mother, it would be very difficult.

[SteveF]

Quantum immortality baby!

[BioBeing]

My post was a response to this one by DMB:



I agree that it was somewhat tangential to the OP.

However, I'd say only somewhat tangential, because the although the OP only asks "What happens when death comes?" not "What happens to me when death comes?" the second is a reasonable interpretation.

Well, the question "what happens to everybody else after I die" doesn't seem that interesting from a philosophical angle. They will carry on. The world will carry on. Just like it did before we were born.

And as I happen to think that the thing I call "me" and "I" is, essentially, a point-of-view - in fact a travelling point-of-view, the point-of-view from which the trajectory through time and space taken by the pattern of matter sitting here at this keyboard, I'd say it was also to some extent the point-of-view taken when other people try to take it - when they construct the world from my point-of-view. And when I construct it from theirs.

So, to paraphrase Hofstadter, our brains are not, in fact, limited to the point-of-view we privilege by the pronoun "I" but also, crudely, host to other points-of-view - to other selves. When I die, my point-of-view will be pretty well gone, because my brain wont be doing any more travelling through time and space. However, it won't be completely gone. The world will not entirely cease to see itself from the point-of-view of that particular clump of matter. For a while, anyway.

Part of your self might be your POV, but only part. Self is also comprised of what/how your body is at a given time - hungry, tired, hot...

And I just think that saying that someone mimicing my POV after I die allows me to live in some way seems very ... much a cop out. Maybe that is not what you are saying, but it is how I was reading it - not being able to fully mimic your POV, of course. We cannot walk a mile in another's shoes, much as we might try. Have you never been surprised by something someone you thought you knew very well did?

[tjakey]

I see life as a pattern in the matter / energy of the cosmos, much like a wave is a pattern in the water of the ocean. Atoms of matter and photons of energy constantly flow into and out off the pattern that people call "me." I also see consciousness as requiring the most complex of patterns and thus is one of the first thing to be lost when the pattern begins to dissipate, a point that we call dying. After that point the body continues to dissipate as the matter / energy flows back into the cosmos until, ultimately, all traces of the pattern are lost.

[Copernicus]

Consciousness makes sense for bodies that move about and need to avoid danger and seek comfort. While we are alive, our consciousness waxes and wanes. Trauma to the brain can cause it to shut down completely. So I think that we all know (or suspect) what death is like. It is a total lack of self-awareness--what many Buddhists claim they seek to attain.

DMB spoke closest to my feeling on this subject. From one moment to the next we are a different person. Which one dies when the body finally expires? Only the last one in the series. The rest have already died long ago.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Consciousness makes sense for bodies that move about and need to avoid danger and seek comfort.
Not strictly true (but I know what you're getting at). A robot could be made to move about and seek self-preservation etc. Nicholas Humphrey used to argue (I gather he's shifted a bit) that just about all animals (meaning mammals etc) are effectively 'soft machines', automata with no more consciousness than something like a slug or ant, because they don't need self-awareness to operate.

His argument, which I think he still agrees with (unlike the soft machines), was that the purpose of consciousness is as an 'inner eye', highly useful in a highly social and already clever primate. By 'knowing thyself' (as the Greeks had it), you can understand others better, make better guesses about how those you have to interact may react to what you do.

He went on to point out that our ability to project and guess / impute motives leads us to see consciousness where there may be none (ie pet dog as soft machine again) and where there is certainly none (car that won't start, recalcitrant computer etc).

So to rephrase what I quoted: consciousness makes sense for an intelligent and highly social animal.

[Ada]

But we can play "who knows" and "what if" all day. To my knowledge there is no evidence that a bunch of minds creates anything.

I think bunch of minds can create qualities which cannot be created or even predicted by single mind. Phenomenon like Wikipedia, Linux or other Open Source Projects are spontaneous creations made by bunch of minds.

I think of consciousness as quality emerging from bunch of neurons.

Lower level emergent creation example could be multi-cellular organisms. It is hard to imagine possibility of dinosaur by looking at unicellular organism.

Going even lower, snowflake is extremely hard to imagine by studying water molecule. Only bunch of water molecules in very specific environment (temperature, pressure humidity, ...) allows snowflake to emerge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

:-) Ada

[Notta]

That's even more true than you may realise. You are physically different to the point that there's probably not a single atom in your body now that was in it 20 years ago.
What about in your bones? The ossified parts don't regenerate. Same with teeth.

[Ada]

I really like symmetry argument mentioned in this thread - that we would "feel" after death the same way as we "felt" before we were conceived ... borne ... babies (I am not so sure about exact point in time).

I think people are dying on many levels - like a layered system - one build on top of the other. Usually these systems will go "off line" pretty close together, but not always.
People with alzheimer's disease are still living, but large part of their consciousness is already gone.
People in coma, or persistent vegetative state are much less alive they were before.

Earlier person was considered dead, when heart stopped beating. Now I think clinical definition is lack of EEG waves.
Yet even after person is very much dead be some parts are still alive. Hair and nails are growing for couple of days. So not the whole life ceased yet.

Using the same symmetry I would suggest that becoming human happens in in stages. Some undiferentiated bunch of cells first, then organs, then organs are built, then they go online one by one - heart, brain, ability to feel pain, move, see, hear, ..., ability to function outside of womb, ability to walk, speak, draw, read, write, ....., reason.

I have heard from my friend from India, that he celebrates his birthday 1/2 year after he was born in western terms. He did not even have a name before that time. Culturally he was not considered a human yet. I think this was that culture defense from pain caused by high infant mortality. Yet after hearing that I started thinking that human is more of a layered processes happening gradually during the lifetime.
I think newborns are not conscious. If you ask me when they become conscious I would not be able to tell that. It seems to me more like gradual process. Consciousness is not necessary to be alive. And I feel that some parts of my consciousness were not working correctly until I was about 30yo. And who knows, maybe I am still missing some parts of being human package?

:-) Ada

[Copernicus]

Not strictly true (but I know what you're getting at). A robot could be made to move about and seek self-preservation etc. Nicholas Humphrey used to argue (I gather he's shifted a bit) that just about all animals (meaning mammals etc) are effectively 'soft machines', automata with no more consciousness than something like a slug or ant, because they don't need self-awareness to operate.

I disagree with Humphrey's presupposition that robots are somehow less vulnerable than us 'soft machines'. The fact is that self-awareness is a hot topic in robotics these days. There is a school of thought that brains developed as guidance systems for moving organisms. Generally speaking, they keep the organism away from danger and allow it to go to the location of energy supplies and mates. Self-awareness is important, because it facilitates self-diagnosis and repair. Autonomous vehicles need to be able to refresh batteries (feed), imagine consequences of their actions (plan), and learn new things about their situation. They need to understand when their body parts are not working properly and how to get themselves fixed when things go wrong. Robots are recapitulating animal evolution.

Air vehicles are among the most complex vehicles that we build, and they already come equipped with all sorts of devices that report their condition to ground stations (ACARS stands for aircraft communications addressing and reporting system). They are not self-aware in our sense, but future designs are advancing in the direction of more self-diagnosis and quick repairs both in-flight and on the ground.

Now, you talked about how socialization goes hand-in-hand with consciousness, but we see the same demands come into play with teams of robots cooperating to perform a task. Aircraft now have sophisticated sensors for detecting and avoiding collisions in the air and on the ground. Is that not a precursor to socialization in the machine world? Awareness of one's self and surroundings is simply a requirement for the future development of autonomy in machines.

[reddhedd]

I totally disagree that newborns aren't conscious; they don't have the ability to think in words or images, I believe, but they are aware of their surroundings, make efforts to move away from discomfort and move towards comfort, and attempt to communicate with the people around them. I also am sure that unborn babies are aware and to a limited extent, (probably due to the limited options in their womb environment) do all of the above.

I just don't know at what point that bunch of cells become self aware...and perhaps knowing that "boundary" will help determine at what point a person is truly dead.

Otherwise, I agree with the layered consciousness...in stages we become more self aware.
And that I will be in a similar state after death as I was in before life, except that I will be contributing to further life through my bodily deterioration. Ya know, that whole circle of life thing! ;)

[Ada]

Hi Kate,

I totally disagree that newborns aren't conscious; they don't have the ability to think in words or images, I believe, but they are aware of their surroundings, make efforts to move away from discomfort and move towards comfort, and attempt to communicate with the people around them. I also am sure that unborn babies are aware and to a limited extent, (probably due to the limited options in their womb environment) do all of the above.

I really wish names were more precise. What I tried to say was that I do not see newborn and babies as having qualities which makes humans stand out from other species. I read somewhere about babies and monkeys raised together. Impression I got from that article was that at the age of 2 years, human baby left monkey baby far behind in cognitive (?consciousness?) development. But it was not so obvious at the age of 1.
Maybe I should call it higher consciousness? I do not know what would be the good name.

Instead of finding the right word I would like to use quote from
"The Magic Years: Understanding and Handling the Problems of Early Childhood" by Selma H. Fraiberg.

"Here is the dilemma. At the end of the evening Brandy (our dog) is bribed with the biscuit to leave his favourite place and descent basement stairs to his own bed. [...] It is a breathless moment. Will he raise above instincts at last? [...] He does not want to go downstairs, but he does want biscuit. A few minutes pass. Suddenly, unable to withstand the longing another moment, Brandy descends the stairs in pursuit of his biscuit and is easily led to bed. few minutes later we may hear mewling noises. Brandy having eaten his biscuit, remembers finally, why he hadn't wanted to go downstairs in the first place.
The events described here have gone on for nearly every night for four years.
Why haven't Brandy caught [...] that if he can forego the satisfaction of Dog Yummy he [...] will gain greater satisfaction of luxury and companionship upstairs?
[...] The real biscuit dangling in front of his eyes has no trouble competing with the mental picture of solitary bed in furnace room.
[...] He hesitates at the top of the stairs, not because he can imaginatively reconstruct the sequence of events to follow, but because his sensory memory prompts him to anticipate something unpleasant connected with the taking of the biscuit. But he couldn't tell himself why.
[...] If he could translate the whole experience from biscuit to solitary bed in a practical symbol system, he would be able to construct mentally the sequence of events without going through the actions.
[...] All of those qualities that we call human derive from possibility within every human being of acquiring control over the instinctual self and of modifying his character and his circumstances through intelligence that has large degree of independence from primary human drives."

This was my understanding of conscious. As something opposed to instinctual, habitual or automatic.
I do not see differences in such defined consciousness between newborns and lets say puppy or chimpanzee. Would you agree with that?

It really starts startling me. When does bunch of connected computers become internet? When bunch of users posting and reading Secular Cafe becomes community? Is it necessary for individual from homo sapient species to raise above Brandy (dog from quote above) level of symbolic processing. How could we tell the difference? All of this seem much more gradual and fuzzy than I thought before. Ouch.


And that I will be in a similar state after death as I was in before life, except that I will be contributing to further life through my bodily deterioration. Ya know, that whole circle of life thing! ;)
I also find idea of being of some use after death calming and meaningful.
For me personally it would be an honor (not that I would have been aware of that) to have my heart (or other organs) transplanted and extend or raise quality of some other person life.

:-) Ada

[Copernicus]

I found the account of Fraiberg trying to get into the dog's head amusing. Fraiberg obviously does not understand the concept of addiction to dog biscuits in the canine species. Victims of lung cancer have been known to smoke even after a lung has been cut out, and morbidly obese people still go to McDonalds. Brandy's behavior is hardly subhuman. ;)

[DMB]

I found the account of Fraiberg trying to get into the dog's head amusing. Fraiberg obviously does not understand the concept of addiction to dog biscuits in the canine species. Victims of lung cancer have been known to smoke even after a lung has been cut out, and morbidly obese people still go to McDonalds. Brandy's behavior is hardly subhuman. ;)

I read a report that said that 40% of people who had had tracheostomies because of throat cancer caused by smoking continued to smoke through the hole in the throat.

[Ada]

I found the account of Fraiberg trying to get into the dog's head amusing. Fraiberg obviously does not understand the concept of addiction to dog biscuits in the canine species. Victims of lung cancer have been known to smoke even after a lung has been cut out, and morbidly obese people still go to McDonalds. Brandy's behavior is hardly subhuman. ;)

Dogs live their lives by instincts quite well. There is billions years of evolution put in that "knowledge". I think humans can live their lives by instincts (not so much conscious) quite well too.

My impression is that that people behavior is only occasionally over-animal.

I like that quote from "Waking life" movie:
"When you come to think of it, almost all human behavior and activity is not essentially any different from animal behavior. The most advanced technologies and craftsmanship bring us, at best, up to the super-chimpanzee level. Actually, the gap between, say, Plato or Nietzsche and the average human is greater than the gap between that chimpanzee and the average human. The realm of the real spirit, the true artist, the saint, the philosopher, is rarely achieved."

I am not saying that there is no difference. I believe that there is a difference between super-chimpanzee and average human. Super-chimpanzee has no potential to become artist, saint, the philosopher .....

I do not know the answer, but I like the question: "When conscious human emerges and when conscious human disappears (concept layered over human-animal)?

Does it drift off topic?

:-) Ada

[reddhedd]

Hi Kate,

I really wish names were more precise. What I tried to say was that I do not see newborn and babies as having qualities which makes humans stand out from other species. I read somewhere about babies and monkeys raised together. Impression I got from that article was that at the age of 2 years, human baby left monkey baby far behind in cognitive (?consciousness?) development. But it was not so obvious at the age of 1.
Maybe I should call it higher consciousness? I do not know what would be the good name.

Interesting...I'd love to see some hard data on the developmental speed and stages in the various primates contrasted and compared with human babies. Perhaps it's just my desire to remain at the (supposed) apex of primate evolution that makes me want to doubt you. :D



[...] All of those qualities that we call human derive from possibility within every human being of acquiring control over the instinctual self and of modifying his character and his circumstances through intelligence that has large degree of independence from primary human drives."
This was my understanding of conscious. As something opposed to instinctual, habitual or automatic.
I see babies as having a high degree of instinct, absolutely, but I really think they are self aware at birth, even if they cannot express that (yet).

I do not see differences in such defined consciousness between newborns and lets say puppy or chimpanzee. Would you agree with that?



Hmm. I would agree that it can be hard to discern obvious differences between babies of any type. But I think we need more science to determine if there are in fact no differences.
The 'fact' that a baby doesn't (so far as we can tell right now) think in abstracts doesn't make it less conscious, does it? Because there are adults who have trouble with less than concrete ideas as well...some autistics, IIRC. Are they less "human" than I?

There are people who, so long as they have no cake or chocolate in front of them, have no trouble abstaining. But, when faced with a real piece, they are unable to pass it by. They choose the reality of immediate gratification, just like the dog. Are they less conscious than someone else who can resist the cake?


I'm not saying you're wrong, I just think it's got more variables and subtle nuances...not a cut and dried, black and white issue at all.
And since we don't have all the stuff in our brain figured out, much less consciousness, we can't really know the answers. Makes it fun, eh? ;)


I also find idea of being of some use after death calming and meaningful.
For me personally it would be an honor (not that I would have been aware of that) to have my heart (or other organs) transplanted and extend or raise quality of some other person life.

:-) Ada
Yeah, it's a bit of immortality that even us infidels can enjoy contemplating, and achieve.:yay:

[reddhedd]

BTW, I apologize for my part in the derailment of this thread....

[DMB]

<mod hat on>
I think it had probably shot its bolt as far as the original discussion was concerned, and it's an interesting derail. But if anyone would like a split, please PM me.

</mod hat>

[reddhedd]

I killed it....:sadyes:

[David B]

I killed it....:sadyes:

You never know, maybe some Christian or Muslim will come along in a week, a month, a year, stumble across this thread, and make the thread do a Lazarus:evil:

David

[reddhedd]

hope springs eternal....:D

[Ada]

Interesting...I'd love to see some hard data on the developmental speed and stages in the various primates contrasted and compared with human babies. Perhaps it's just my desire to remain at the (supposed) apex of primate evolution that makes me want to doubt you. :D

This is the link to original experiment:
Gua (monkey) and Donald (human) raised together:
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/history/wnk/ape.html
As a twist not very much expected:
"Donald and Gua played together. They were fed together. And the Kelloggs subjected them both to regular tests to track their development. One such test was the suspended cookie test, in which the Kelloggs timed how long it took their children to reach a cookie suspended by a string in the middle of the room.
Gua regularly performed better on such tests than Donald, but in terms of language acquisition she was a disappointment. Despite the Kelloggs's repeated efforts, the ability to speak eluded her. Disturbingly, it also seemed to be eluding Donald. Nine months into the experiment, his language skills weren't much better than Gua's. When he one day indicated he was hungry by imitating Gua's "food bark," the Kelloggs decided the experiment had gone far enough. Donald evidently needed some playmates of his own species. So on March 28, 1932 they shipped Gua back to the primate center. She was never heard from again."
excerpt from http://www.dailycognition.com/index.php/2009/02/08/top-20-most-bizarre-experiements-of-all-time.html

It also looks like monkey are born much more mature than human babies.
"[...]The macaque infant differs from the human infant in that the monkey is more mature at birth and grows more rapidly; but the basic responses relating to affection, including nursing, contact, clinging, and even visual and auditory exploration, exhibit no fundamental differences in the two species. Even the development of perception, fear, frustration, and learning capability follows very similar sequences in rhesus monkeys and human children.[...]"
from 1958 experiment with raising monkey with surrogate mothers.
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Harlow/love.htm


There are people who, so long as they have no cake or chocolate in front of them, have no trouble abstaining. But, when faced with a real piece, they are unable to pass it by. They choose the reality of immediate gratification, just like the dog. Are they less conscious than someone else who can resist the cake?

This is what bothers me. I think they are less conscious. Or maybe less sentient or sapient.
I also think penguins and chickens and ostriches and emus are less of a bids than let's say albatrosses. It does not mean that are worse, just not so "birdy". Same with baby birds which did not reach flying stage yet.


It bothers me because in my search for "what makes me human" and "When I became a human" does not seem to have good answer.
If just having potential to become self-aware or acquire language is important, than fertilized egg should be considered human - it definitelly has the potential. If ability to feel pain, or sustain life outside of the womb, then second trimester of pregnancy, if ability to speak, than maybe 2yo.
2-4yo for ability to distinguish between self and others. I.e. at that age kids start lying, because they learn that others do not know all the things they know.

Birth seems very arbitrary time to me. Some consider first 3 months a 4-th trimester of pregnancy, evolutionally moved out of womb, because of our big brains.
http://cas-courses.buffalo.edu/classes/apy/mcelroy/medapy01/exercise4b.html

Is it really bad or taboo to contemplate if born babies are fully conscious human?

Is it bad to contemplate if some adults are conscious-human, or are still conscious-humans?

:-) Ada

[reddhedd]

fascinating studies, Ada...thanks. I'll be reading those links in depth this weekend!
I thought animals couldn't speak as we do because they don't have the same larynxes. But as far as communicating there was Coco the gorilla that used sign language and was able to grasp and relate quite sophisticated ideas.... Or at leastmore sophisticated than was expected of a "mere" animal. If this is true, and this a defining trait of human- ness, then would you consider Coco more human or more conscious than a severely autistic person?

No, I don't think it is or should be taboo to question when or if a being becomes human. It does raise interesting questions about the future of artificial intelligence, self awareness, animal rights etc. It definitely merits discussion and study, IMO.