# GQ as GD: Facts vs. opinions re: the afterlife and other unprovable stuff **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 3, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876 "2010-12-03T23:30:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/121 "2010-12-06T02:59:18Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > What Has been presented as “proof” that we can KNOW, in a scientiifically sound way, whether souls are real or existence of some kind can continue after the death of the body is the plain, inarguable fact that if the brain is broken, the person in possession of the brain is also “broken”, but that’s really no more “proof” that an afterlife is possible than death itself is proof! This is incorrect. The proof lies in the fact that we know with an absolute certainty that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain and cannot exist or continue without it. There’s no mystery about it. It’s pure physics. We are not standing around wondering what happened to the consciouness of a dead person. we know. It ceased to exist. This is not a guess or a hypthesis or a theory. It’s a provable, physical fact. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/122 "2010-12-06T03:05:35Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > ??? > > Examples, because I don’t understand, at least, not when I look at how you used it. In order for something to be a viable scientific theory it has to be falsifiable – that is, it has ti be testable. It has to make predictions which would confirm or falsify th theory. Confirmations constitute “evidence.” There are no possible tests for a “soul,” hence no evidence. > [@](#): > > I dont’ think their needs to be - I was presenting it as an example of how a soul could operate, as an analogy. You did not present a scenario which is physically possible, or even coherent. ---
**Author:** ![Light\_of\_Marduk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c67d28/32.png) [@Light\_of\_Marduk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Light_of_Marduk)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/123 "2010-12-06T04:30:14Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Everything about consciousness, namely sense and memory, exist only in the specific, unique physiology of each individual brain. You’re making a huge error in your interpretation of what I said: “Perhaps at brain death, the field that is consciousness, that has been maintained and regulated by the brain collapses down (or expands upwards) to another form of consciousness.” This doesn’t imply anything about whether the consciousness maintains “sense” and/or memory, although that is a possibility under certain hypothetical scenarios. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > We do not lack awareness or consciousness while we are asleep. I think you are misinterpreting things again: “The lack of awareness of our consciousness while asleep or unconscious may simply be a creation of the brain…” So you are aware of stuff while asleep or unconscious? Very interesting. I’d suppose being aware while you are asleep may be something that you experience, but I am not aware of my surroundings while asleep. And if you’ve ever been unconscious, through anesthesia or possibly trauma, and you remained aware, well, that’s not what “unconscious” means. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Yes we can. We can and have determined that all human consciouness is an emergent property of the physical brain. There is no other consciousness. The statement “There is no other consciousness” is unsupported hogwash. Back to what I actually said: "As most of us cannot escape the control of the brain while it is alive, we cannot determine what other states of consciousness may or may not exist outside of the brain’s control. " Other states of consciousness are not necessarily defined as “human states”, as they are outside of the (human) brain’s control. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is all gibberish. There is no such thing as “beyond the control of the brain.” The brain is all there is. Wrong, unless you define the brain as the whole universe. We haven’t determined that the conscious field cannot collapse down to inhabit (and be influenced by) a smaller material structure, nor have we determined that it cannot expand beyond the confines of the brain to inhabit a larger material structure (such as the milky way galaxy). > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There are altered states of consciouness, and it is possible to experience a sort of underlying consciousness underneath the ego consciousness (I’ve done it), but that is still the brain. Maybe (it is still _only_ the brain). It also could have been your consciousness experiencing 2 different levels of consciousness at once: quantum or cellular (or higher level), and that of the human brain. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Calling people “stubborn” and “ignorant” because they don’t believe in magic is not an argument for magic. I didn’t call you either, and wouldn’t call you that if I thought you were as it would solve nothing (try calling a stubborn and ignorant person “stubborn and ignorant” and see what happens…). I said I thought you were leading those who are stubborn towards the truth by pretending to be stubborn and ignorant. I apologize if I misunderstood what you are doing. You’re making a bunch of absolute statements without any proof, so I assumed you were trying to get people to address the statements in order to provoke mental development. It’s a tactic that some of the very best teachers use, however, sometimes those who emulate these teachers don’t understand that making absolute statements without proof doesn’t render the statements true, even if they come from a respected source (someone who says stuff you agree with). ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/124 "2010-12-06T04:41:52Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > In order for something to be a viable scientific theory it has to be falsifiable – that is, it has ti be testable. It has to make predictions which would confirm or falsify th theory. Confirmations constitute “evidence.” There are no possible tests for a “soul,” hence no evidence. Actually there is such a test. If there was evidence that our brain was interacting with something we can’t detect directly, that the brain was sending data and receiving it from something invisible then that would be evidence for some kind of soul-ish _something_ existing. But souls fail that test, so instead only untestable and therefore unscientific versions of the soul are spoken of. Instead, we are told that souls on one hand are perfectly indetectable and “immaterial” (whatever that means), while at the same time able to apparently download our entire mind state without interacting with our brain or with matter or energy in general. Magic, in other words. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/125 "2010-12-06T04:46:00Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You’re talking about people once positing supernatural explanations for actual observed phenomena. An “afterlife” does not explain any observed phenomena. It’s not the same thing. It’s like saying, “people once thought evil spirits caused disease, there it’s possible that smurfs exist.” It’s a complete non-sequitur. You really need to back away from the Latin, Dio, before you get hurt. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/126 "2010-12-06T06:26:44Z")
> [@Light\_of\_Marduk](#): > > You’re making a huge error in your interpretation of what I said: > “Perhaps at brain death, the field that is consciousness, that has been maintained and regulated by the brain collapses down (or expands upwards) to another form of consciousness.” This is not a physical possibility. > [@](#): > > So you are aware of stuff while asleep or unconscious? Asleep, yes. It’s a differnt level of awareness, but it’s awareness. > [@](#): > > And if you’ve ever been unconscious, through anesthesia or possibly trauma, and you remained aware, well, that’s not what “unconscious” means. The brain is still active during unconsciousness or anastheis. > [@](#): > > The statement “There is no other consciousness” is unsupported hogwash. No it isn’t. When it comes to the individual consciousness of a human being, we know exctly what causes it and what confines it. Individuals do not have any other consciousness besides that which is created and sustained by their own synapses. [quote[Other states of consciousness are not necessarily defined as “human states”, as they are outside of the (human) brain’s control.[/quote] There are no states of consciousness outside the brain’s control. > [@](#): > > Wrong, unless you define the brain as the whole universe. I don’t even know what this is supposed to mean. The consciousness ofa given individual is confined to the physical process of that individual’s brain. The barin “controls” every bit of it. None of it is trasnferable to the “universe,” whatever that means. > [@](#): > > We haven’t determined that the conscious field cannot collapse down to inhabit (and be influenced by) a smaller material structure, nor have we determined that it cannot expand beyond the confines of the brain to inhabit a larger material structure (such as the milky way galaxy). Yes we have. > [@](#): > > Maybe (it is still _only_ the brain). It also could have been your consciousness experiencing 2 different levels of consciousness at once: quantum or cellular (or higher level), and that of the human brain. No, we know for a fact it’s purely celluar. > [@](#): > > You’re making a bunch of absolute statements without any proof. I am making categorical statemnts of proven fact. Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. We know this beyond all question., Thgere is no magic involved, and no possible way for consciousness to continue without the brain or be transferred to some kind of non-material nether region. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/127 "2010-12-06T06:31:33Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > You really need to back away from the Latin, Dio, before you get hurt. Does this post have a point? Do you have an actual rebuttal? Do you think I don’t know Latin? Do you think I used a Latin phrase incorrectly (I did not)? My post still stands as both accurate and unrebutted. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/128 "2010-12-06T08:11:47Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is incorrect. The proof lies in the fact that we know with an absolute certainty that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain and cannot exist or continue without it. There’s no mystery about it. It’s pure physics. We are not standing around wondering what happened to the consciouness of a dead person. we know. It ceased to exist. This is not a guess or a hypthesis or a theory. It’s a provable, physical fact. Your implacable certainty is tiresome (not to mention the attitude that seems to ride along with it, although I suspect it’s a little worse the usual because of the ass-kicking I gave you in my pedo thread.) but not without its uses: because it helps me to learn new things. Because I don’t assume you’re wrong when you seem to be, I follow up. Which is how I know you aren’t always wrong, but you do have this terribly frustrating tendency to take a little bit of right and turn it into wrong! In this case, the term “emergent property” was not really clear to me, particularly as you apply it, as though it means something as clearly observable as the fact that pain exists only through a brain, it has no existence apart from it, (which is true, since pain is actually a perception created by the brain itself, a fact readily discerned by many means, the creepiest being the people who are born without the ability to feel it). But consciousness is _ **not** _ as specifically confined to the existence of a brain, that’s pretty much the point. And your absolute conviction that it is is not only mistaken, it’s especially so on the terms that you specify: “It’s pure physics.” To begin with, you seem to be equating “consciousness” with life itself, which is perfectly reasonable if the context in which you are studying the nature of consciousness has nothing to do with considering the question of a soul, life after death, or anything similar, and that is the context that gives birth to the idea of consciousness being an “emergent property” of the brain itself. Because of course consciousness goes away all the time without us being dead – it goes away when we’re asleep, in a coma, under anesthesia… but we do not cease to be alive when we cease to be conscious. So it is an error to use research about the nature of consciousness and hold it up as though it demonstrates proof about the nature of life itself. You are essentially equating consciousness and what believers call the soul. Yet there’s no reason in the world to do so. Everything that has been learned and written about consciousness merely explains a LIVING state of being and how it is created and operates, and right or wrong, absolutely nothing about any of that inherently disproves the possibility of an ALTERNATE state. It merely describes, explains, measures how consciousness operates in this dimension. If a soul is present in a body, the body can give the soul expression through the conscious state of the body. That doesn’t limit the soul existing differently elsewhere. Think of a soul as water… which can exist as a liquid, solid or gas. It operates differently in the three different states. Well, perhaps a soul operates through the body via consciousness in the brain, like water in a container, and in the afterlife dimension the soul is conscious in a manner indescribable by us but real none the less? How does one rule out the other, any more than the existence of liquid water rule out steam or fog or ice water? In other words, stop thinking about life and death for a second and think dimension A, dimension B. WE think it’s death, but perhaps it is exactly what many spiritual teachings say it is: just a change from this state of being or dimension to a different one? I have more but I’m on a bunch of Vicodin for a dying tooth so I gotta go for now… ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/129 "2010-12-06T08:27:56Z")
I’m equating consciousness to consciousness. There isn’t anything else. I’n not equating it to a “soul.” That word doesn’t mean anything. The word “soul” is meaningless gibberish with no explanatory purpose, no definition, no possibility of physical existence. Even as conceptualized (and even calling it a “concept” is giving it too much credit),it’s completely superfluous, and serves no function that the brain doesn’t already serve. A “soul” fills no gap. There’s nothing a soul can’t do that the brain doesn’t already do, and “other dimensions?” I’m not sure how you mean the word “dimension,” but there’s definitely no such thing as a “soul” in any perceptible dimesnion of this universe. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/130 "2010-12-06T10:04:11Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > **in any perceptible dimesnion** of this universe. There ya go! Exactly what I’ve been saying since the start! The limits of our perception don’t constitute the limits of what there is to be perceived… ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/131 "2010-12-06T10:31:30Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > There ya go! Exactly what I’ve been saying since the start! The limits of our perception don’t constitute the limits of what there is to be perceived… Here, I think, is the fundamental disagreement. I’m claiming, along with others, that it makes no sense to say that something exists if it is imperceptible, and has no effect on anything. If there is a soul, it _has_ to exist in this universe, as we exist in this universe. Also, I’m not talking about whether we can in fact perceive it, I’m talking about whether we can in theory perceive it. There are several particles believed by physicists to exist, despite us never having seen them, because they are necessary to make the theories work. Experiments are constantly being run to try to detect these particles. I hope this makes sense, I’m kinda rushing on my break at work. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/132 "2010-12-06T11:54:27Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Emergent properties cannot transferred. Everything about consciousness, namely sense and memory, exist only in the specific, unique physiology of each individual brain. [/QUOTE] How does memory exist in each individual human brain? Why can’t memory be transferred? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/133 "2010-12-06T12:17:34Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > How does memory exist in each individual human brain? Why can’t memory be transferred? Could you please describe the vessel you would be transferring the memory to and/or the method of transference? Bear in mind that we have never had a confirmed case of a human thought transferring itself via non-mechanical means from one person to another. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/134 "2010-12-06T13:09:15Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Could you please describe the vessel you would be transferring the memory to and/or the method of transference? Bear in mind that we have never had a confirmed case of a human thought transferring itself via non-mechanical means from one person to another. I am not quite clear but - > [@Steophan](#): > > If something exists, it can at least theoretically be observed, if not necessarily measured. Can memory be observed.. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/135 "2010-12-06T13:26:22Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > I am not quite clear but - > > Can memory be observed.. Its action can and most assuredly has been observed. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/136 "2010-12-06T14:29:07Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > There ya go! Exactly what I’ve been saying since the start! The limits of our perception don’t constitute the limits of what there is to be perceived… Let me put it another way. It doesn’t exist in any dimension of this universe. There is no magic, “dimension,” perceived or otherwise, in which you can hide your fairy spirits. I don’t think you really even know what the word “dimension” actually means in physics. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/137 "2010-12-06T15:32:50Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. Is memory an emergent property of consciouness? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/138 "2010-12-06T16:38:00Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > How does memory exist in each individual human brain? It’s a complicated process, but they are initially encoded electrochemically in the hippocampus (short term memory) before being analyzed and filtered for significance, then moved to the frontal cortex. > [@](#): > > Why can’t memory be transferred? Because it would require a physical mechanism for transmission (not just “other dimension” magic) and a physical receiver and receptacle in which to store it. Memories are chemical imprints. They are physical. If the information were to be copied or “transferred,” it would require a new physical medium to copy itself onto. > [@](#): > > Can memory be observed. In PET scans, yes. The electrochemical activity of memory encoding and retrieval can be directly observed. > [@](#): > > Is memory an emergent property of consciouness? No, memory is a contributing factor to consciousness. Consciousness comes (partially) from memory, it’s not the other way around. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/139 "2010-12-06T17:19:11Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Your implacable certainty is tiresome (not to mention the attitude that seems to ride along with it, although I suspect it’s a little worse the usual because of the ass-kicking I gave you in my pedo thread.) but not without its uses: because it helps me to learn new things. Ah, yes: implacable certainty. I’ve noticed that some people seem unable to live with uncertainty (and **Diogenes** is as good an example as any, though I don’t want to turn this into a thread about him). You never hear them say “We don’t know for sure” about anything; they pick whatever seems most likely to them and insist on it. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2010, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/140 "2010-12-06T17:22:43Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I think with my brain. I **am** my soul, but my brain is what I (that is, my soul) use to think with (just as my eyes are what I use to see with). Or at least, that’s one conceivable way to look at it. > > When I’m tired, or drunk, or unwell, it feels to me as though the thing that I use to think with isn’t functioning up to full speed, but that I am still I. This feeling doesn’t prove anything, but it at least suggests to me how there might be more to my essential self than my physical brain. What are you? A name only? Or are you the combination of a certain level of intelligence plus an affinity for math, or music, or art, or whatever? Are you your memories? Where is the soul of someone with Alzheimers, who has lost many of his memories? I don’t know what our identities can be except a function which responds to stimuli in a certain way. We know that function changes with age and medication, and tiredness. How do you define “I”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876.md?page=8)