Life after death

I'll enumerate your replies and work from there: 1) That's exactly my point, you yourself have said it "When did you observe a non-physical entity to say what it can or can't do?" By admitting that there have been no observations of any non-physical entities, you are implying that all ideas on this particular subject are nothing more than speculation and I'll tell you something else, the definition of physical in modern science far beyond that which is solid, is all objects that are made up from particles in the standard model. The universe consists of 73% dark energy, 23% dark matter and 4% regular matter. Energy such as radiation, heat and light are made up of particles, from photons to quarks which means that even energy is physical because it is made up from atoms. A non-physical entity would imply something that is not made up from atoms and the only things that are not made up from regular atoms are either antimatter particles (which in fact are just atoms but with inverted electric charge) and dark matter. The latter is responsible for the expansion of the Universe. If we take this objective description of what is physical, what would the soul be made of if it isn't made up from atoms? Besides, let's accept for a moment that there is in fact a soul, how can a soul perceive the world without a brain? You see, if you take the electromagnetic components of thought, that is the electric waves used by neurons to make awareness possible, away from the brain, they become simple electric waves indistinguishable from those found in the air. It's like, if you took a computer's hardware and you just carried the electronic information of the files said computar contained, in the absence of a machine that can process information, that information by itself becomes meaningless. This is precisely what I think happens during death. Even if the electromagnetic and chemical information of consciousness were to remain intact even after the death of the brain, if there is no biological structure to process those thoughts, awareness becomes impossible. Here is my first question. Consider an embryo. It is a living being as it is made up of millions of cells yet, because its brain is not fully developed, it has no way of restoring memory that's why we can't remember the time we spend in our mother's womb. Go back in further and consider a simple sperm and an egg, compare that state of existence with a person who's been dead for centuries like say Julius Cesar. The state in which Julius Cesar is in today is worse than just bones, he is simply dust and the fact that even living structures like cells without a brain cannot process reality to be properly considered conscious in the sense that we are, how can a dead person in the afterlife ever have awareness if cells that are actually alive and actively interacting with reality, hardly have a glimpse of consciousness beyond their biological adaptations to reproduce and adapt? If an embryo with a forming brain can't have long-lasting memories, if he can't see nor hear yet, because his brain is still forming, please explain to me how someone dead, without a brain could possibly be aware in the afterlife? 2) What I said was that HUMAN consciousness depends on human anatomy, I never said that consciousness objectively depends only in our anatomy. Of course there are thousands of nervous systems and brains that are vastly different to ours and with that being said, I suggest you read more carefully so that you don't misunderstand what I argue. What you say about the differences in anatomical structures and how they enable other animals to perceive more or less the same reality as we do is true but when we talk about a dead human or animal, you have to remember that we are dealing with a state where, THERE IS NO BRAIN OR ANATOMY, so how can there be awareness if there is no cerebral anatomy? Sure a fish with a very different brain can still be conscious and even sense some of the things our brains perceive but tell me how can a dead fish with no brain possibly be aware of its surroundings? 3) The thing is, that evolution shows that we all derived from the same microorganism 3.8 billion years ago. This means that we have a certain connection with mammals who also have primitive language-processing glands in their brains. For example the Fox-P2 gene which is responsible for language in humans is also found in other creatures who communicate through sounds, a primitive form of what we do, like dolphins and chimps. Of course consciousness is not only human, I never said that, what I said was that, if the characteristics of consciousness such as perception, thought and memory which are Universal. Mice, flies and all other animals have memory, they experience fear and pleasure therefore they have emotion, some of them have identity and that's how they are able to tell themselves apart from other objects. So that explains why I spoke about memory, identity and thought because these things are not exclusive to human. A dead camera? What do you mean by that? I'm sorry but your answer proves nothing. If you take away the brain that regulates the characteristics of consciousness which are Universal to all living beings, by definition if you take away A which produces C, how can you expect C to exist in the absence of A? If there is no brain, there is no memory for all animals not just for humans, if there is no hypothalamus there is no pleasure or fear again for all living beings not just humans so can you say that the things that were necessary to interpret reality before death are not needed after death? Those things that are needed to detect reality are the only means by which consciousness can exist, saying otherwise would necessarily mean that we are no longer talking about awareness because as you said, the definition of consciousness is the capacity to be aware of something and the things that allow this awareness to be possible are the senses which in all animals are generated by the brain. You can then argue, how are bacteria aware of their surroundings when they have no brain? But if you look at the biology of bacteria, you will find that they use chemical structures to process light, to mutate and feed upon nutrients and these chemical structures are visible through a microscope, besides they are in essence, chemical tools developed through natural selection to sense the real world which means they do the same thing as a brain but a much inferior level. 4) Again, you don't read everything I say and just end up misunderstanding. What I meant by that argument was that you can't bring up a Near death experience in an argument that is to do with DEATH not near death but with DEATH and with that being said, the differences between a rotting corpse (A PROPERLY DEAD CORPSE) with the body of someone who came out of a near death experience are immense because some of the organs are still working in the case of the Near death experience while in the case of the corpse, ALL organs have seized to work. Therefore, bringing up Near death experiences is useless because the circumstances involved with these kind of experiences are VERY different to those involved with death as it actually is. If I were talking about going to the moon, would I bring up how I nearly went to the moon? If I were talking about what sex feels like, would I tell you about the time I NEARLY had sex? No because the experience is not complete and therefore very different to the actual thing. Having sex is very different to NEARLY having sex, similarly being NEARLY dead is as different as it gets to actually being dead. Your point is as a consequence, completely irrelevant. What you say about Einstein is wrong. There is only one interpretation to his theory because we are dealing with objective science not with subjective ideas. Read what e=mc squared means, check out the math behind special relativity and also Dirac's work in quantum physics and then you will understand. Here are some new questions for you, try and read them carefully this time: 1) How can there be a sense of time for someone who's dead, when the passage of time is consciously detected by the act of observation? If you look at quantum mechanics, specifically at the work of Erwin Schrodinger, you will find that due to the uncertainty principle, particles exist not as definite points in space but rather as waves of probability. These waves of probability must be collapsed in order for quantum reality to take a single form. The cat paradox states that a cat may be dead and alive simultaneously unless it is observed and though this has sprung a lot of controversy and there are multiple interpretations of this paradox, one such interpretation is the Copenhagen interpretation and it basically says that consciousness is necessary to quantify certain, subatomic aspects of reality. The act of observation as conceived in this interpretation of quantum mechanics, is done through the senses. When someone dies, their senses disappear as perception cannot take place in the absence of the brain. 2) If all matter in the Universe consists of atoms and atoms are never stationary nor inmutable, how can the soul be immortal?