Are we Alive? [Archive]

Don Corleone

02-23-2006, 02:55

Funny question. I know. But you know, I have always had a stringent disavowal of the paranormal, other than the 'allowable' paranormal from my Roman Catholic upbringing.

Then, tonight, I watched a movie that got me thinking. If you're dead, wouldn't you know? Well, maybe no. There's a character like me in the movie... all sense and facts, except for religion, and there's no in-between. And what about dying in your sleep? How do "YOU" conciously know that you've died? I'm curious about this from all angles, all opinions welcome.

Do you think death is a moment of epiphany, for better or for worse? That an angel and a demon show up and throw dice over your and one takes you away? Or do you think it's more sublime than that... do you have to 'resolve' things before you go? Or is there anything? Is it a lightswitch being turned off? Maybe we live on, we think everything is as normal, yet everything changes around us, unknown to us. Again, back to the original question... Descartes proof of existence, "I think, therefore I am" doesn't exactly help you define what temporal state you believe you're in (or the one you actually are for that matter)...

Anybody else ever look around and ask "How do I know my mind's not more powerful than I give it credit for?" :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull:

Seamus Fermanagh

02-23-2006, 03:02

I am utterly certain that my mind is no more powerful than I credit it to be. Less than hoped for is actually a distinct possibility.

Don C, I think the answer to you question will only come upon discovery. Not sidestepping, just don't have a better answer.

Divinus Arma

02-23-2006, 03:07

I think I have an easy answer to this question.

Ever been black out drunk?

Remember how you have recollection of anything that took place, so it was like it never even happened?

That part of your brain was pretty much turned off for the night. Imagine when you don't even have that part of your brain.

That's death. No heaven. No hell. Just nothing at all. And that is the mercy of God.

Don Corleone

02-23-2006, 03:23

Aaah, but when you're black out drunk, things continue to happen around you. When you wake up, frequently you learn, like it or not, you were involved in the 'goings-on', though those moments will never be recalled. How do you know you just didn't 'switch modes' so to speak?

Cowhead418

02-23-2006, 04:33

I believe that after you die there is nothing. There is no God, no heaven, and no hell. You feel just like you felt a thousand years before you were born, which is absolutely nothing. You did not exist then and after you die you will cease to exist. I've tried to imagine what this is like but it is mentally impossible for me to think in this way. It is quite an unnerving thought.

KukriKhan

02-23-2006, 04:47

Kukri thinks (ha! then it must be wrong)

I am. Possibly, you are. I can't prove either posit. But I think, and feel that I am, and fervently hope that you are... because it (doesn't prove, but) provides comfort that maybe I am.

When I stop breathing, which seems to be what happens eventually to most other "I am's", then I am will not be. I don't know what happens after that. Smarter guys than I have proposed several scenarios, but they all seem to include losing the current "I am" to some bigger I am.

Seems kinda sad, 'cause I've gotten accustomed to being I am, and I usually (but not always) like I am.

So I can only conclude from all that, that what happens, and what I do, between sleep periods, matters somehow. And I probably shouldn't waste that time. Be well, do good, keep in touch. :)

Samurai Waki

02-23-2006, 04:49

Its not unnerving if you realize that before you were born the only thing you knew was nothing at all, and you were at peace because there was nothing to be discontented about.

GoreBag

02-23-2006, 05:03

I was always a fan of the notion that the world would cease to exist once I ceased to live.

Big_John

02-23-2006, 05:07

imo, the answer is that you can not know what the true nature of your perceptions are. descartes resolution to his meditation is a fallacy, imo. the 'great deciever' concept is a possiblity, and as such, one can not know what the relationship between perception and any objective reality is.

a type of epistemic faith is required; a person must at some level just believe that he is alive/awake/etc.

in order to get beyond this, i think we'd need some sort of metaphysical machinery (conceptual or otherwise). naturally, that's are hard to come by, and i haven't yet encountered a satisfying metaphysical solution. however, i haven't looked that hard.. it's not something i worry about much.

if you allow a soul to exist (i.e., a metaphysical seat of personal identity), there may be a simple solution, because death need not be an end to, nor necessarily a break in the stream of conscious experience.

Papewaio

02-23-2006, 05:16

Its not unnerving if you realize that before you were born the only thing you knew was nothing at all, and you were at peace because there was nothing to be discontented about.

We are not born a blank slate.

Believe me we are born kicking and screaming and in no time we know that it is a cold world and we have to wait a time before we can feed and that we have to rely on others to function.

Before being born the unborn child can hear things, can perceive things, it will kick and squirm and react... if the mother has a fright (watches a horror film) the unborn child will react... if the mother is content, the more likely the child will do so. However it is a hungry little thing and it will change the eating habits of most pregant women to meet its needs.

KukriKhan

02-23-2006, 05:24

We are not born a blank slate.

Believe me we are born kicking and screaming and in no time we know that it is a cold world and we have to wait a time before we can feed and that we have to rely on others to function.

Before being born the unborn child can hear things, can perceive things, it will kick and squirm and react... if the mother has a fright (watches a horror film) the unborn child will react... if the mother is content, the more likely the child will do so. However it is a hungry little thing and it will change the eating habits of most pregant women to meet its needs.

So says the new Pappy, bless ya. :)

However it is a hungry little thing...

Indeed. Breathing, seeing, eating, hearing, touching... all that stuff = we are hungry little things, eagerly insatiable for knowledge and things to sustain us.

Byzantine Prince

02-23-2006, 05:55

Screw it. No one listens

Zalmoxis

02-23-2006, 05:59

JimBob

02-23-2006, 06:00

Was this movie Waking Life?

You don't know, so who cares? Act like it's real and you'll find out eventually(or not?).

Quietus

02-23-2006, 06:03

Funny question. I know. But you know, I have always had a stringent disavowal of the paranormal, other than the 'allowable' paranormal from my Roman Catholic upbringing.

Then, tonight, I watched a movie that got me thinking. If you're dead, wouldn't you know? Well, maybe no. There's a character like me in the movie... all sense and facts, except for religion, and there's no in-between. And what about dying in your sleep? How do "YOU" conciously know that you've died? I'm curious about this from all angles, all opinions welcome. If you ask me, the same before you were "Alive". Does anyone know anything before they were "alive"? No. Hence, it will be the same as before.

Do you think death is a moment of epiphany, for better or for worse? That an angel and a demon show up and throw dice over your and one takes you away? Or do you think it's more sublime than that... do you have to 'resolve' things before you go? Or is there anything? Is it a lightswitch being turned off? Maybe we live on, we think everything is as normal, yet everything changes around us, unknown to us. Again, back to the original question... Descartes proof of existence, "I think, therefore I am" doesn't exactly help you define what temporal state you believe you're in (or the one you actually are for that matter)... Death is my biggest fear, hence my screenname, Quietus (death). I'm glad I'm not alone being scared.

I've always wanted to put: Death is Forever under my screenname but I don't want to creep out other people and get them thinking about mortality as well.

Anybody else ever look around and ask "How do I know my mind's not more powerful than I give it credit for?" :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: Because the brain is physical and it is dependent on physical rules, hence it is fairly limited.

Samurai Waki

02-23-2006, 06:24

We are not born a blank slate.

Do you remember anything when you were in the womb? or before, when you were just a concept? 'Cause if I'm the only that doesn't remember, I'm in serious trouble
~:confused:

rory_20_uk

02-23-2006, 12:21

To fully grasp the intangable nature of death one can either spend an eternity, or just wait until it happens to them.

DO we have a soul? Has our consiousness evolved to the point where it can exitst without a body? Who knows?

They do say that death is a door, and on one side is a horrible painful place. I guess that depends on which way you're looking.

As far as we can be aware, asking any person their view on what happens after death is basicaly asking for an editorial based on little evidence, as everyone is guessing or assuming.

"I think I'm thinking, therefore I might possibly be"

~:smoking:

Kagemusha

02-23-2006, 12:29

I guess we will all find out,the day we die.

Ja'chyra

02-23-2006, 13:53

Another good question Don :bow: and one that is definately worth a ponder, as long as it doesn't become an obsession.

I have often thought about it and while I would like to think that my family and friends will be there when I cross the river the only thing that I have decided, in my profoundly limited wisdom, is that I just don't know:inquisitive:

I do not think it is something to fear, but, like childhood, neither is it something to rush.

When I do, finally (hopefully), die I'll meet you for a vodka and we can see if we can figure a way to let the others we left behind know there's nothing to fear.~:cheers:

Don Corleone

02-23-2006, 14:02

If you ask me, the same before you were "Alive". Does anyone know anything before they were "alive"? No. Hence, it will be the same as before.
Aaah, but we take it for granted that things that happen while we are asleep actually happen, even those for which we have no empirical evidence. There are all sorts of states of suspended conciousness in which we do not assume ourselves to temporarily cease to exist. IMHO, awareness does not equate with existence.

And no, the movie wasn't Waking Life.
It was The Others. I saw the 'what' coming, I just couldn't see the 'how' until the very end. A very, very good movie.

You're on for that vodka, Ja'chyra. ~:cheers: I'm not particularly obessed. I've pondered this question seriously at several points in my life and in the end, I've always taken the mentally lazy but satisfying result "Does it really matter if I'm 'truly' alive, or dead and stuck in a created existence, seems real enough and satisfying enough to me". Which, when you think you think about it, creates the same action... living to increase the joy and fulfillment one gets out of their own and others' existence.

Husar

02-23-2006, 17:49

No, since your brain stops working when you die, it's natural to assume your eyes stop working. You won't see death, you won't feel it. You die and become a faceless member in a greater number of statistics.
Well, you don´t always need eyes to "see" things, even your memory can store pictures. Also, pictures are composed by your brain from the data it gets from your eyes. Those 16 fps from your eyes are made to a fluent "film" and your brain uses pretty good antialiasing I think. But I still find it hard to belive that "I am" just my brain, though my brain is definitely a nice thing to have.:2thumbsup:

What about mentally ill people for example? Are they not existant because they don´t know that they "are"? I tend to see them in a way that their soul is fine, just the brain, the phyical entity of a being, is messed up and so they act in strange ways. Maybe they even know that to some degree, because most people also know that they´re drunk when they are.

A.Saturnus

02-23-2006, 19:48

I would say we are alive, because if we were dead, our hearts wouldn't pump blood through our brain, depriving it of oxygen. Without oxygen, the brain can't work, which it obviously does since thinking about whether we are alive requires brain activity. We can also assume that the world doesn't cease to exist while we sleep because that's the simplest solution.

Jubilation T Cornpone

02-23-2006, 22:21

For all you Sven Hassell freaks out there. Wasn't it Porta who used to murmer 'come, sweet death, come' before each attack? Crazy top hat wearing mixed up kid....

Reverend Joe

02-24-2006, 05:03

Why are you even bothering with this question?

Life is a horrible thing. It subjects us to endless downfalls, pain, and sorrow. It is relentless and unforgiving. But none of this cruelty exists, can exist, without an equal measure of good. The downs come between ups; the pain follows and preceded pleasure; sorrow is broken by joy. We all have to experience the pain, have to look at it, accept it, and then fight our way through it, so that the pleasure is all the more wonderful on the other side.

Thinking that you can escape pain and pleasure is escapism. It is utter foolishness, because it negates the very purpose of living: to feel pleasure, and to feel pleasure, you must endure pain. To lose these both is, by definition, death. It is the same as losing humanity. If there be a heaven and hell, I wish to see neither, because to me they will both be an unendurable hell: a place where we are not human, because we either experience no pleasure, or no pain, and I honestly don't know which I would fear more. Budhists, who seek to eliminate pain and pleasure, are similarly depriving themselves of humanity; they are, ironically, causing themselves the greatest pain and torture possible: that of losing humanity, of losing life.

Focusing on death is meaningless, because no matter what come after, if anything, it is almost a sure bet that you lose your humanity in the process. So enjoy being human, and enjoy it how you wish, and not how some jabbering fool tells you to: use your head, and be a human being, because it won't last long.

For once, I hope someone takes me seriously here, because I have just opened up a huge part of my own spiritual beliefs to you people.

Alexanderofmacedon

02-24-2006, 05:14

Maybe there is no such thing as earth. Maybe we're all just in a program called...

...THE MATRIX!:idea2:

Taohn

02-24-2006, 06:13

Why are you even bothering with this question?

Budhists, who seek to eliminate pain and pleasure, are similarly depriving themselves of humanity; they are, ironically, causing themselves the greatest pain and torture possible: that of losing humanity, of losing life.

I'm not a Buddhist, but I've done a lot of reading on the subject and I'm also taking a course in it at university. Based on my understanding, Buddhists don't seek to eliminate either pain or pleasure, but rather engage in a process of investigation into all aspects of the human psyche (through various practices, be they intellectual reflections, meditations, chants, tantric or other rituals, etc.). Worldly experience and feeling are not condemned in favour of a stone cold, lifeless aloofness, but neither does the Buddhist abandon himself or herself to every emotional breeze that comes along (though both these extreme states are themselves a part of the entire range of human experience). The ideal, as it were, and as I understand it, is a sort of gentle, tolerant equanimity, one grounded in a real, down to earth appreciation of the experience life in all its manifestations.

As to the problem of death, what really fasciantes me is how our self-reflective consciousness appears to arise from nothing but a certain arrangement pure matter (as opposed to the idea of matter being animated by a soul or somthing like that). So I guess death is more of a change of state than something's actually disappearing. The self-reflection might be gone, but what constituted it has not "died". I think humans for the most part see themselves as outside observers of natural phenomena, but aren't we really that same pure matter thinking about itself?

Papewaio

02-24-2006, 07:18

Do you remember anything when you were in the womb? or before, when you were just a concept? 'Cause if I'm the only that doesn't remember, I'm in serious trouble
~:confused:

So to be alive you have to have a 100% memory of all prior events.

Lets forget that most people filter what they remember and that they forget the majority of it within a week.

Few people remember much before they were 4. Are 4 year olds dead because their elder self cannot remember who they were?

Are younger people dead because Alzheimers patients in their 70's cannot remember much (although sometimes all they remember is their youth)?

Or are Alzheimers patients are the walking dead?

Zalmoxis

02-24-2006, 07:19

Well, you don´t always need eyes to "see" things, even your memory can store pictures. Also, pictures are composed by your brain from the data it gets from your eyes. Those 16 fps from your eyes are made to a fluent "film" and your brain uses pretty good antialiasing I think. But I still find it hard to belive that "I am" just my brain, though my brain is definitely a nice thing to have.:2thumbsup:

What about mentally ill people for example? Are they not existant because they don´t know that they "are"? I tend to see them in a way that their soul is fine, just the brain, the phyical entity of a being, is messed up and so they act in strange ways. Maybe they even know that to some degree, because most people also know that they´re drunk when they are.
Haven't thought about the mentally ill, but I can tell you it's a complicated matter that may erupt into a debate on wether the mentally ill are or are not people.

Quietus

02-24-2006, 09:07

Aaah, but we take it for granted that things that happen while we are asleep actually happen, even those for which we have no empirical evidence. There are all sorts of states of suspended conciousness in which we do not assume ourselves to temporarily cease to exist. Hmm, even while asleep, the person still lives, since "living" is linear, meaning there's a beginning and ending.

IMHO, awareness does not equate with existence. Existence, or you mean "life"? A plant does not have a "brain" but it's still "living".

And no, the movie wasn't Waking Life.
It was The Others. I saw the 'what' coming, I just couldn't see the 'how' until the very end. A very, very good movie. I see, I don't know Waking Life, but I've seen The Others. In that movie, there's a bridge between Natural and Supernatural. And the Supernatural beings behave like Natural beings :inquisitive:

Samurai Waki

02-24-2006, 09:14

Pape Touche'...:laugh4:

KafirChobee

02-24-2006, 09:41

Was I a butterfly dreaming I was a man, or a man dreaming I was a butterfly?

So, I assume no one here has experienced a walk back? That is, that after someone they loved died ... that person came back to them in a dream (that seemed real as sh_t, like they were there in the room and you were fully awake). I have, and my conclusions is ... no there is no life after death (as we imagine it), but for a short time the dead have the energy to communicate (or atleast attempt to) with those they are either concerned about or love.

Since we all want to live forever (not me, but reincarnation would be neat ... though I ain't sure I would want to see what 2100 would be like), it is probable that those that created the religions that promote the belief of "eternity" had that in mind. Eh?

A.Saturnus

02-24-2006, 19:59

Few people remember much before they were 4. Are 4 year olds dead because their elder self cannot remember who they were?

Being alive is nothing special. Bacteria live too.

Soulforged

02-25-2006, 06:05

I cannot know. But the sentence that expresses a general possition goes like this: "We're not alive, but we live as we were".

Csargo

02-26-2006, 06:05

I'm pretty sure I'm alive, but then again you can never tell.
:inquisitive:

Zain

02-28-2006, 00:35

This great quote by a good friend of mine comes to mind;

"The Matrix has you, Neo." -Morpheus.

I'm pretty sure we're alive. Why else would we be able to die? (Again?)

-ZainDustin

Byzantine Mercenary

02-28-2006, 09:54

There is a scientific basis for the idea of an afterlife, einstine himself believed in an afterlife because matter and energy can not be destroyed therefore if we have souls then they cannot be destroyed and so will live on for ever.

But i would say that the scientific evidense for us having a ''soul'' is unclear although this is something i believe.

so i guess the real question is, do we have souls?

Quietus

03-01-2006, 03:24

Byzantine Mercenary

03-02-2006, 14:49

First, define "soul" (that is relatable to the physical world) and using that definition, determine if there is evidence of its existence.
isn't the problem with a soul that it is not related to the physical world but the psycological/spiritual, there have been interesting instances of personallity change after organ translants, is this due to transferrral of part of the donars soul? i don't know?
does a ghost act in the physical world? ive never seen one but i know that someone like Derran Brown could make you think you have, but then again he can also make you think hes invisible can read minds and that your in a computer game!
its like one of the many other weird phonmonon out there (like Champ) they say in every instance that quantity of evidense is proof, but is it? is it proof that humans have a knowlege deep inside that there is something more? or that their all bored! or even that the main public itself does not like to listen to different views on whats goin on?
I can't present any ''proof'' that you guys would all accept but that doesnt mean that it is impossible, heck if you think about it a soul is something that most of earths population believe in na dall science itself is is a collection of the most plausable or most popular explanations of phenomonom (da daaa dadada :laugh4: )

BDC

03-02-2006, 22:47

Meh, viruses live and they are a small pile of nucleotides and proteins. Whilst actually creating life is pretty tricky, once it's around it seems to last fairly well.

I'm alive, and so are the billions of single-celled organisms in my gut...

Big_John

03-02-2006, 23:02

Meh, viruses livemm.. whether viruses are "alive" is debateable. just fyi.

Reverend Joe

03-03-2006, 01:37

Viruses are, indeed debatable, but bacteria are not. So: do bacteria have souls?

Papewaio

03-03-2006, 02:19

I can't present any ''proof'' that you guys would all accept but that doesnt mean that it is impossible, heck if you think about it a soul is something that most of earths population believe in na dall science itself is is a collection of the most plausable or most popular explanations of phenomonom (da daaa dadada :laugh4: )

Science is not a democracy.

And I think you have a Euclidian point. :laugh4:

Quietus

03-03-2006, 03:16

isn't the problem with a soul that it is not related to the physical world but the psycological/spiritual, there have been interesting instances of personallity change after organ translants, is this due to transferrral of part of the donars soul? i don't know?
does a ghost act in the physical world? ive never seen one but i know that someone like Derran Brown could make you think you have, but then again he can also make you think hes invisible can read minds and that your in a computer game!
its like one of the many other weird phonmonon out there (like Champ) they say in every instance that quantity of evidense is proof, but is it? is it proof that humans have a knowlege deep inside that there is something more? or that their all bored! or even that the main public itself does not like to listen to different views on whats goin on?
I can't present any ''proof'' that you guys would all accept but that doesnt mean that it is impossible, heck if you think about it a soul is something that most of earths population believe in na dall science itself is is a collection of the most plausable or most popular explanations of phenomonom (da daaa dadada :laugh4: )

Since organs have the same functions and general structure, the problem really is organ rejection where the new body doesn't molecularly recognize the transplanted organ hence it being attacked by the immune system.

The conundrum with Natural and the Supernatural is that there is no link whatsoever between the two.

For example: Ghosts. What is a Ghost? Is it relatable to the physical world?

Meaning, does it follow the laws physics? eg.

If it has mass such that it has to follow gravity.
If it reflect visible light making is visible to the human eye.

If so, then it is not Supernatural, it is Natural.

Therefore, is the Soul natural? What is it made of? What holds it together? What's the link between the body and the soul?

There must be a definition first before it can be answered properly. :)

Viruses are, indeed debatable, but bacteria are not. So: do bacteria have souls? Virus are non-living and it depends how anyone define what a soul is.

Zalmoxis

03-03-2006, 06:46

Viruses are, indeed debatable, but bacteria are not. So: do bacteria have souls?
Soul as in a spiritual represention of your being in a parallel universe, or soul as in knowing that you are alive?

Papewaio

03-03-2006, 06:53

Soul as in a spiritual represention of your being in a parallel universe, or soul as in knowing that you are alive?

Well if it was the second then wouldn't it be definition not exist if you were dead? ... as the soul would now know that the body wasn't alive... and then what would be the point of a soul...

Byzantine Mercenary

03-03-2006, 17:45

Science is not a democracy.

And I think you have a Euclidian point. :laugh4:

I never said science was a democracy :inquisitive:

in science the most accepted theory is ususally the most popular one is it not?

heck when ever a scientific opinion is asked they say, most scientists think...

i guess its a sort of natural democracy :laugh4:

Arcanum

03-03-2006, 20:12

What decides what is alive? What is the definition of "alive"? Breathing? Yes. Beeing able to experience pain? Yes. So I'd say, in the way we mostly use the word "life" and "alive", all humans live.

Whatever you see in it, in my definition, I can say with certainty that I am alive.

My opinion on death probably corresponds with a lot of people on this board - since many here look at things straightforward and logically. I think death is nothing, and it is unimaginable.

Avicenna

03-03-2006, 22:39

If you ask me, the same before you were "Alive". Does anyone know anything before they were "alive"? No. Hence, it will be the same as before.

Death is my biggest fear, hence my screenname, Quietus (death). I'm glad I'm not alone being scared.

I've always wanted to put: Death is Forever under my screenname but I don't want to creep out other people and get them thinking about mortality as well.

Because the brain is physical and it is dependent on physical rules, hence it is fairly limited.

Surely leaving the world and all it's misery, pain, suffering and bickering between nations would be the final release, maybe even something to celebrate.

Banquo's Ghost

03-04-2006, 16:54

in science the most accepted theory is ususally the most popular one is it not?

Not really. The most accepted theory is the one with the most evidence to support it. Because scientists adhere to the same ground rules of evidence, there will tend to be a correlation between accurate theories and scientific consensus.

But, for example, gravity won't vanish just because no-one believes in it (should that happen). Before Newton, there was no popular awareness of it as an explainable force, but things still fell down. :trytofly:

Viking

03-04-2006, 22:06

We are alive, because:

*we define alive as what we are now.

Byzantine Mercenary

03-04-2006, 23:35

Not really. The most accepted theory is the one with the most evidence to support it. Because scientists adhere to the same ground rules of evidence, there will tend to be a correlation between accurate theories and scientific consensus.

But, for example, gravity won't vanish just because no-one believes in it (should that happen). Before Newton, there was no popular awareness of it as an explainable force, but things still fell down. :trytofly:

i didn't say that scientific fact is dependant on how many people believe it, only that the theorys that are accepted are taken as such because they are the most popular, of course the usual reason that they are the most popular is (mainly) because they have the best evidence. When Newton first presented his theorys he had to win over supporters before his theorys were accepted. If most scientists had not accepted his theorys then they wouldn't be the most accepted.

Byzantine Mercenary

03-07-2006, 12:31

When I was little, the question of "What happens after I die?" bugged me. It bugged me alot. Over the years, i've come to see so many different positions on this, all of which are so sure in themselves that to believe in them you need to allow for a purely faith-based "fact" within your mind. No hard evidence, just faith. And I don't like that.

So I came to the conclusion that the only way i'll find out is when I die. So, in a way, death becomes the next big answer to a question i've always wondered, rather than a great big scary thing.

That said, while death doesn't bug me, the idea of dying does. No bleeding out on the floor for me thank you. So if you ask me the way to go about life is simply to go about life, and when death occurs, we'll know the answer to this ultimate question. Or we'll simply not exist. Who knows?

On a related matter, from purely empirical observation, the best way to ensure a life after death of sorts is to make sure you will be remembered by those still living.
well the nearest you can get to people who have died that we can talk too are those who have been clinically dead at times and had a so called ''near death experience'' it seems odd that a dieing brain would waste energy making something like that up, an experience which is often even clearer then a dream and dreams have the focus of a healthy brain and yet always have holes in them. add to that the relative uniformity of peoples experience and you have interesting if perhaps not 100% sound evidence for an afterlife