Is the afterlife in the traditional sense becoming an afterthought?

Question:As science progresses with an understand within the biological processes of life it is becoming more apparent that we may very well just be a biological machine. I for one used to believe in a spirit within us or consciousness surviving after death as a possibility but it is becoming more apparent that that perhaps is not a reasonable conclusion. If neuroscience progressing and the fact that personality can be altered via drugs or brain damage or consciousness (the theorized immortal aspect of self) can be turned off either by sleep or anesthesia doesn't that imply that we are what we are and once we die that is it? How could consciousness survive death if it can not even exist under anesthesia??

So as science progresses, is the afterlife becoming an afterthought? Please share your thoughts and knowledge on the subject if possible, I actually know very little on the subject other than what I have read from Blackmore's writings.

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: As science progresses with an understand within the biological processes of life it is becoming more apparent that we may very well just be a biological machine. I for one used to believe in a spirit within us or consciousness surviving after death as a possibility but it is becoming more apparent that that perhaps is not a reasonable conclusion. If neuroscience progressing and the fact that personality can be altered via drugs or brain damage or consciousness (the theorized immortal aspect of self) can be turned off either by sleep or anesthesia doesn't that imply that we are what we are and once we die that is it? How could consciousness survive death if it can not even exist under anesthesia??

So as science progresses, is the afterlife becoming an afterthought? Please share your thoughts and knowledge on the subject if possible, I actually know very little on the subject other than what I have read from Blackmore's writings.

I am not a scientist nor am I a philosopher or an ordained minister of faith...I am just a person who has had numerous life experiences, both within scientific explanation and outside of it...I was, however, a nurse in the medical profession for many years and know the reasons behind the "dead zone" under anesthesia...it can be explained physiologically, pharmaceutically and medically...to use it in comparison with ongoing consciousness after death is unfounded. But to answer your questioning of an afterlife, perhaps watching this video may enlighten you to consider that there is more beyond our mere physiological earthly existence...to think that "this" is all there is...well, it's not scientific...its ludicrous

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsV2oWL0b...
.
.

Your science is outdated. Read up on quantum physics and you will find that science has changed so much that it could actually be called "spiritual". As far as the afterlife goes, that is returning to the fairytale status it started out as.

I think yes. It does in a sense become an afterthought.

My views on the anesthesia are perhaps because we are still attached to the physical being that is why we cannot survive it.

Everything is a form of energy, including mass E=MC^2, and even consciousness since it contains the capacity to do work. The second law of thermodynamics states that Energy cannot be created nor destroyed only changed in form. Therefore, Consciousness survives death.
In our society, death is something to be avoided in every way & not accepted, so yes it is an afterthought for those who have not faced it. It has been said that a true philosopher is someone who accepted their own inevitable death.
Under anesthesia there is still brain activity although you may not remember what happens while "under". Some people in rare instances do remember. HOW SPOOKY WOULD THAT BE?

The unconscious reigns in sleep and anesthesia. It is the "other" that screen writes our dreams.
As an aside, I just remembered a Monty Python sketch where a man was filming another man when the camera man asks, "Who is filming me?" There could be an infinite number of camera operators, no?
C. :)