Have any possible scientific afterlives been posited, that is a continued existence of the self/soul/ego/whatever after our corporeality has ended?
Scientific? Probably not since that has to be testable and I don’t see anyway that could possibly happen. I suppose you could have an atheistic conception of an afterlife. I don’t think a soul has to be attached to a notion of God, but I’m not aware of a belief system in which that is true.
Well this atheist believes that you essentially become a bag of fertilizer at death.
I suppose you could go with “energy changes form but never ends” thing, but it’s unconscious, so who cares?
Digitally uploading the mind to either storage or a virtual reality environment.
It’s not possible now though, but maybe one day.
I think that’s as close as you’ll get to a scientific afterlife.
Whether you’d actually be the same person, or just a very good copy is up for debate though.
Isn’t this a contradiction in terms for most atheists? By postulating a soul or a soul equivalent you’ve moved out of the realm where most atheists dwell. Your question is defeated as it is asked.
Wasn’t there some group that was claiming our very distant descendants might have the computing power to create a perfect, self-aware simulation of our personalities, plus (somehow) the ability to work backwards and snag a copy of us, to start it up.
(as distinct from the we-are-already-in-a-sim hypotheses)
Also, cryonic preservation with the hope of future technology being able to resurrect the corpsicles (and render them immortal) is bordering on a notion of afterlife.
If you mean corporeal in terms of beyond our bodies as they exist now - then sure, they’re are plausible possibilities of how our consciousness might continue in one form or another.
But these forms would all be ‘corporeal’, in terms of they would all physically have an existence.
No, atheism just means a belief that there is no god/goddess. It doesn’t remove religion in its entirety though.
As for a scientific version of the afterlife, there’s the idea of near death experiences that are most likely chemically related to the brain than anything spiritual or supernatural. (This isn’t meant to invoke the board’s famous NDE “specialist”)
Take the idea that consciousness is some type of physical phenomenon even if we don’t know exactly what causes it. Now take the idea that the universe recreates itself in an infinite number of cycles. It could be inevitable that whatever makes you conscious also recreates itself over and over. If true, this may seem more like infinite reincarnation but I think the divisions are very blurry and this would be an afterlife of sorts albeit a very strange one.
But what is religion with no gods? I think when most people say they’re atheist, they’re also admitting to not believing in a spiritual afterlife and similar, unprovable things.
Forgive my ignorance if I’m wrong here but wouldn’t Budism count?
They don’t belive in a God but they do belive in life after death of your physical form.
That’s the dictionary definition of atheism. In the real world most atheists (and note that I carefully littered my post with that qualifier: atheists are a diverse group, just like all other groups) remove themselves from religion and vice versa.
There is no scientific evidence of NDE, just anecdotal accounts.
Buddhism.
Technically, it’s possible to believe in something like reincarnation without believing in any gods (and millions of people do), so non-theistic notions of an afterlife (or at least a continued existence of sorts), do exist.
As for scientific hypotheses. Nope. Consciousness and memory are emergent properties of the brain. No brain = no “soul.”
Pedantically speaking, NDE’s are the anecdotes. There is no reason to believe the experiences have any supernatural basis, but strictky speaking, NDE’s do exist as a subjective experience.
An afterlife could probably someday be achieved technologically by a brain-in-a-jar hooked up to a virtual reality computer. If being supernatural isn’t a necessary part of the definition, then that might suffice.
Simulating a mind in a computer may or may not, since that’s more of a copy than a continuation of the original.
hijack;
Only if you were actually USED as fertilizer, which probably isn’t legal. Otherwise you pretty much have two choices in our society;
1> Have your corpse filled with chemicals, locked in a metal box and sealed in concrete. Ten thousand years from now, those bodies, combined with fragmented zombie/vampire tales; are probably going to convince people that we lived in terror of our dead.
2> Crackle, crackle, crackle.
But that’s not really on-topic.
/hijack
Well you could opt for a natural burial.
How come bodies are embalmed routinely in the US?
So they will last long enough for a funeral.
How long do the arrangements take? Isn’t refrigeration enough?