After Death

[Nick]

Of course not. As I said, it is strictly a conscious experience. Logically, you can’t describe a "non-experience," Nick. I should have thought that more than abundantly clear. I mean, really, how do you describe something that can’t be experienced? It’s not even a thing. Get rid of the quotations marks and think on it, instead.

Your confusing my words with the actual concept we are discussing here. My words only point to the truth of the matter, and serve the purpose of challenging one's ego. You might be confusing the two because you have trouble with abstract concepts.

Oh, you’re confused because of the Wittgenstein thread, I see.

I haven't read much of anything from that thread.

If death is non-experience, nothing happens after it, by definition--and, funnily enough, experience. But whose experience?

Who said death is non-experience? This is why I used quotes around the term, because it isn't the actual concept I am using it to point to.

Sometimes, people will tell you that they have died and returned from the dead, to tell you all about what happened whilst they were dead. Fantastic. Such stories abound after pronouncement of clinical death. Then they get the ol’ ticker and whatever going again and he’s told, “Man, you were dead for two minutes.” So, the guy says, “Wow. There is an afterlife! Bright, tunnel lights, action, camera…saw you all from the ceiling!” Did the guy die, or didn’t he? Was this an after-death experience or an experience in consciousness?

There are no experiences outside of consciousness. Whether it's after their body appears dead and their heart is no longer beating is entirely irrelevant. Also the term after-death is reduntant, we are literally living after death each and every moment. Again the point I'm trying to get across and the only point I care to argue is that consciousness doesn't last forever.

Aside from that, a massive release of DMT from the pineal gland that occurs while someone is dying could explain much of what happens during a near death experience.

You are trying to tell Carl there is nothing before and after death except this one thing, infinite nothingness.

No, it's merely abstract terminology. It's not meant to be interpreted as the actual "thing" that we are discussing.

You are confusing consciousness with ego. If you want to tackle him on his own personal infinitude, then do so.

I think you might just be getting too attached the words themselves making it hard for you to see the abstract concept they point to.

That is an entirely different issue to consciousness and infinite nothingess. Unless you would like to elaborate upon a relevant connection you see between them.

The fact that my consciousnes created the abstract concept of infinite nothingness is connection enought I'd say.

As I have said many, many times before: the infinite can only be understood through the finite. And ALL things are finite, including conceptions of “infinite nothingness.”

Yes, I've also said this many times before.

Stop regurgitating David's "ripe causal circumstances" words and demonstrate your understanding in your own words.

Can you provide a list of "David's words" for me so I don't infringe on his ownership of them?

I'm am more than capable of coming up against them, Nick.

I truly hope so.

[Carl G]

Nick,

I have no problem imagining that the consciousness of any particualar entity will end at some point. As long as we are not tying it to conventional ideas about when that occurs in relation to the apparent cessation of biological function of a body. Which is what various opinions on this thread appear to be attaching it to: physical death = curtains for consciousness. That is what I would call unfounded belief.

[Leyla Shen]

Nick wrote:

Your confusing my words with the actual concept we are discussing here. My words only point to the truth of the matter, and serve the purpose of challenging one's ego. You might be confusing the two because you have trouble with abstract concepts.

[laughs] Your words point to your ego!

But I have to say, it was a good show.

[Nick]

Nick,

I have no problem imagining that the consciousness of any particualar entity will end at some point. As long as we are not tying it to conventional ideas about when that occurs in relation to the apparent cessation of biological function of a body. Which is what various opinions on this thread appear to be attaching it to: physical death = curtains for consciousness. That is what I would call unfounded belief.

I agree we can never know with absolute certainty that our consciousness ends when our physical bodys stop functioning because we are dealing with the empirical realm here. Although I do think it's a well founded belief to think this is the case. For instance, it appears to be the case that as long as my brain is functioning properly I can maintain this self awareness, but when my brain stops functioning properly it seems competely reasonable to imagine my self awareness will cease at that moment. I think that any other conclusion aside from this one is born out of an egotistical desire to preserve their consciousness as long as possible.

[Sapius]

Nick,

Carl, my point is that our consciousness is only temporary just like everything else in this universe.

If you mean yours and mine in particular, then yes.

It will end one way or another.

Yes it will.

Before we were born the causes weren't ripe to produce (OUR) consciousness,

Sure.

there was infinite nothingness.

Absolutely impossible. It is impossible for anything to arise from nothingness, not even consciousness. Unless one believes that nothingness is some sort of a GOD, be it even philosophically understood or described.

After we die the causes will again no longer be ripe to maintain our consciousness,

Yes, ‘our’ consciousness that is.

and once again there will be infinite nothingness.

Again, absolutely impossible. Things - finite things are absolutely necessary for any other thing to arise, including consciousness. ‘Nothingness’ is simply a projection on our part in contrast to “our” consciousness, but things have to necessarily exist, infinitely, and things did not arise out of nothing or nothingness. And we know through reason that “I” (my real ego = awareness = consciousness) am not the only conscious thing in and of existence, so we cannot really talk for or against awareness or conciousness in general.

So I would rather say that things arise from thingness, which is logically more consistent, rather than from nothingness. Because in that, one is simply relpacing the description of God - an Ultimately Ultimate Thing from which arise all other THING'S.

Some even think of Causality in such terms.

Steve1114

What are your views of the afterlife?

Depends on what one means by Life, and that’s the tricky part.

[Carl G]

I agree we can never know with absolute certainty that our consciousness ends when our physical bodys stop functioning because we are dealing with the empirical realm here. Although I do think it's a well founded belief to think this is the case. For instance, it appears to be the case that as long as my brain is functioning properly I can maintain this self awareness, but when my brain stops functioning properly it seems competely reasonable to imagine my self awareness will cease at that moment. I think that any other conclusion aside from this one is born out of an egotistical desire to preserve their consciousness as long as possible.

Dream on. I think you are talking about a leap of faith.

For one thing, you are tying consciousness to brain, or in other words, to your biology. So, I see how you would think that consciousness would end when your body ceases to function. However, it is pure speculation on your part to say that the seat of consciousness is definitely the brain.

[Sapius]

I agree we can never know with absolute certainty that our consciousness ends when our physical bodys stop functioning because we are dealing with the empirical realm here. Although I do think it's a well founded belief to think this is the case. For instance, it appears to be the case that as long as my brain is functioning properly I can maintain this self awareness, but when my brain stops functioning properly it seems competely reasonable to imagine my self awareness will cease at that moment. I think that any other conclusion aside from this one is born out of an egotistical desire to preserve their consciousness as long as possible.

Dream on. I think you are talking about a leap of faith.

For one thing, you are tying consciousness to brain, or in other words, to your biology. So, I see how you would think that consciousness would end when your body ceases to function. However, it is pure speculation on your part to say that the seat of consciousness is definitely the brain.

Nick; another reason why we cannot talk about ‘consciousness’ as it were, but can only referentially.

[Nick]

Absolutely impossible. It is impossible for anything to arise from nothingness, not even consciousness. Unless one believes that nothingness is some sort of a GOD, be it even philosophically understood or described.

It's similiar to the concept of emptiness. Things appear through consciousness, therefore when consciousness ceases there is no/thing(s). I'm not refuting the fact that the infinite itself remains and has remained while all this is going on. I don't know how you can confuse what I've said to mean that something comes from nothing.

Dream on. I think you are talking about a leap of faith.

No faith is required, it just seems far too reasonable to me, that when the brain stops functioning our consciousness follows suit, to believe this isn't the case.

For one thing, you are tying consciousness to brain, or in other words, to your biology.

Well they are tyed together through cause and effect, just like everything is. Consciousness is a thing just like your biology is a thing.

So, I see how you would think that consciousness would end when your body ceases to function. However, it is pure speculation on your part to say that the seat of consciousness is definitely the brain.

It's actually a very reasonable assumption, far more reasonable than anything else one could possibly imagine. And I didn't say its "definitely the brain" that is the seat of consciousness, it just seems reasonable to see how the brain is one the of key factors in maintaining consciousness.

If you ever get knocked unconscious either from a blow or going under for surgery, you are just that, unconscious. Unaware, unmoving, and no conscious thought process going on what so ever. Your body may still be functioning in a manner where it appears that you are still alive, but you are in fact not conscious because the brain isn't functioning properly, be it due to lack of blood supply or chemical interaction. Seems completely reasonable to assume that this unconscious state will happen when our brain stops functioning properly after our final breath, only instead of it being temporary it's permanent.

[Carl G]

It may seem reasonable to you to make such assumptions. It doesn't to me. I don't think we know enough about consciousness to tie it to the body the way you are doing. I don't even care for the way you appear to limit consciousness to brain activity, i.e. thinking.

[Jamesh]

It may seem reasonable to you to make such assumptions. It doesn't to me. I don't think we know enough about consciousness to tie it to the body the way you are doing. I don't even care for the way you appear to limit consciousness to brain activity, i.e. thinking.

This is just your ego advising you to be irrational. I mean, come on, after all your time here, what is making you sprout this Mind/Matter rubbish.

Lets imagine that conciousness is something else. Do you acknowledge that it can only appear as an "entity that knows it is conscious" within some form of brain?

If you don't, well then, fuck off outa here. You've had enough time to learn, but refuse to.

It is true though that consciousness is not the body, but the pattern of existence that the body provides.

[Sapius]

Although Carl can defend himself, James, but in my opinion…

(correction)

James, although Carl can defend himself, but in my opinion...

This is just your ego advising you to be irrational. I mean, come on, after all your time here, what is making you sprout this Mind/Matter rubbish.

He is actually talking against that rubbish.

Lets imagine that conciousness is something else. Do you acknowledge that it can only appear as an "entity that knows it is conscious" within some form of brain?

So are you saying that a monkey knows intellectually that he is conscious, just as you or I do, because it has a “brain”? Or are you saying that a monkey has no brains?

then, fuck off outa here. You've had enough time to learn, but refuse to.

I find your attitude disturbing my friend, although you seem to be quiet a composed guy otherwise. You can ask me to fuck off too, but what will you really achieve in doing that.

It is true though that consciousness is not the body, but the pattern of existence that the body provides.

You mean mind (pattern of existence = consciousness) against matter (body)?

I guess you got up from the wrong side of the bed today… :D

[Leyla Shen]

Nick wrote:

I agree we can never know with absolute certainty that our consciousness ends when our physical bodys stop functioning because we are dealing with the empirical realm here.

You could say that with certainty if you defined personal consciousness as beginning with physical birth, though you'd have to also logically substantiate the argument.

Otherwise, can you introduce me to one single person who knew--was fully self aware--that they were physically experiencing being born the precise moment of the event?

I think we would have such a child burned at the stake. Can you imagine it? .....

"You fucking cunts! Get those god damned fauceps outta my fucken face. I've changed my mind. I ain't comin' out!"

Although I do think it's a well founded belief to think this is the case.

Why? Are you saying that since you were aware of your physical birth at the time it was occurring, it’s an experience you have had and thus a justifiable belief based on that experience?

For instance, it appears to be the case that as long as my brain is functioning properly I can maintain this self awareness, but when my brain stops functioning properly it seems competely reasonable to imagine my self awareness will cease at that moment.

What appears to be the case is when someone else’s brain that you know (or are informed about) stops, or is said not to be, functioning properly that there is no self awareness. From that you can conclude, with all its empirical uncertainty, that self-awareness ceases with brain damage.

I think that any other conclusion aside from this one is born out of an egotistical desire to preserve their consciousness as long as possible.

I think that’s a moot point.

~

N: Lets imagine that conciousness is something else. Do you acknowledge that it can only appear as an "entity that knows it is conscious" within some form of brain?

S: So are you saying that a monkey knows intellectually that he is conscious, just as you or I do, because it has a “brain”? Or are you saying that a monkey has no brains?

Touche!

[Sapius]

Nick,

It's similiar to the concept of emptiness.

I understand, and it applies to that too. What I’m saying goes beyond the kindergarten understanding of emptiness/nothingness, so to speak.

(You said) - there was infinite nothingness.

To begin with, all I’m saying is that no attributes, concepts, in any sense can be applied TO totality since it is logically NOT a “thing”, and one cannot say that for any other thing - absolutely, which makes totality, infinity itself, as it were, and absolutely nothing else that one can point to as having an infinite nature. So when you say ‘infinite nothingness’, firstly, what do you exactly mean by that? And secondly, it seems you are simply given another word to infinity which is not necessary in the first place, and that further complicates what should be a simple realization already.

Since one finds that things do not inherently exist, (that is permanently or independently), one’s false-ego yearns to find some permanency in any which way, so one logically points to emptiness or nothingness, but the fact is, it is the ‘non-inherency’ itself that is permanently there.

It is the impermanency itself that is Infinity. Now why should one call impermanency nothing-ness? Impermanency itself is what is permanent, and both are inseparable, say yin and yang or duality, in other words, totality - infinity.

Things appear through consciousness, therefore when consciousness ceases there is no/thing(s).

In my opinion, no-thing appears “through” consciousness because things and consciousness are inseparable. Do you think likewise?

Totality cannot have a beginning or ending, hence infinite, and hence no attributes apply that generally apply referentially. (Agreed?) Things are finite, including consciousness. (Agreed?) Now you tell me, what makes a finite thing called consciousness so special that Totality (which is infinity, duality, in and of permanency/impermanency, which necessarily requires impermanent THINGS) will cease to exist once consciousness ceases?

On the other hand, if things and consciousness are inseparable, then it makes them one and the same “thing”, so which begins where and ends where?

There are more than one ways to REALIZE the nature of existence, totality. and a REALIZATION is also a thing, in and of existence, totality, infinity. I call it or equate it to existence because of its dynamic nature.

The problem I see is that we think of consciousness (as in MY consciousness) will cease, so absolutely all “things” must cease to exist. Which in my opinion is taking it the wrong way around.

I'm not refuting the fact that the infinite itself remains and has remained while all this is going on.

The 'coming to be and the fading away of finite things', in other words one could say ‘thing-ness’, is only what could be considered Infinite, and that too in nature only, not that some kind of THE INFINITE remains. You are making a God of Infinity as it were.

No thing remains except the ‘coming and going' of things, and THAT is not a "thing" as it were, but since one would argue that that still is a concept, some have found that 'emptiness/nothingness' should somehow be easier to help crack the nut (I'm not saying that it does not help at all, only that it complicates rather than simplify due to misconceptions).

There is no such thing as emptiness or nothingness, or any such thing that remains permanently, even if you deem it a non-“thing”, which actually can be said only about totality ONLY. Simply saying that ‘emptiness/nothingness’ is not a thing would not make logical sense except for totality.

All that ever remains is the awareness (due to the dynamic nature of things, and awareness itself is a thing to whatever lesser or higher degree that it may be, and our consciousness being a higher degree of awareness) of a thing-to-a-thing, and since awareness and things are inseparable, making them one and the same = Totality. We can realize this because of OUR kind of consciousness (a higher degree of awareness), so how wise is it to say that things cease with the ceasing of consciousness, when we don’t even know where either begins, for they are inseparable, making it the totality itself.

I don't know how you can confuse what I've said to mean that something comes from nothing.

May be you did not mean that, but that is what it implied, though.


Leyla,

N: Lets imagine that conciousness is something else. Do you acknowledge that it can only appear as an "entity that knows it is conscious" within some form of brain?

That was not N: (nick’s), but J: (James’s) brilliant thought.

May be it was my mistake in not properly indicating the addressee; I will correct it.

[Unidian]

I think that the "afterlife" is an incoherent, self-contradictory concept. If we die and find that we're somehow still alive, it stands to reason that we aren't dead at all. For the individual, there is either life or there is death, and death is the only thing that can happen "after" life. But if it is truly death, we aren't there for it. As Epicurus said, "where I am, death is not, and where death is, I am not." One can die, but one cannot "be dead." Therefore, there can be no "afterlife." From the dualistic perspective, which is the only one available to thought and logic, there is either life or there is not.

Monistically, of course, the question itself is wrongly put. From the perspective of the totality, what is the difference between life and death? Diogenes, among others, held that there is none. Accordingly, he was asked "if there is no difference between life and death, why don't you kill yourself?" He replied, "because there is no difference."

[Nick]

You could say that with certainty if you defined personal consciousness as beginning with physical birth,

The definition would be accurate, but we can't be certain about the underlying causes that lead to the effect of consciousness. That doesn't mean we can't form a reasonable hypothesis about it though.

though you'd have to also logically substantiate the argument.

There-in lies the problem with using the term certainty. Working with appearances always involves a little bit of guess work.

Otherwise, can you introduce me to one single person who knew--was fully self aware--that they were physically experiencing being born the precise moment of the event?

It doesn't appear to me that the brain and the senses are developed enough to create consciousness at that point. My earliest memories are from when I was 2-3 years old.

I think we would have such a child burned at the stake. Can you imagine it? .....

"You fucking cunts! Get those god damned fauceps outta my fucken face. I've changed my mind. I ain't comin' out!"

Isn't that how babys react anyways? I've never seen a baby that appeared to be happy about being born. It's actually a bad sign if the baby isn't pissed off or crying up a storm following birth.

Why? Are you saying that since you were aware of your physical birth at the time it was occurring, it’s an experience you have had and thus a justifiable belief based on that experience?

I was talking about consciusness in relation to death, not birth.

What appears to be the case is when someone else’s brain that you know (or are informed about) stops, or is said not to be, functioning properly that there is no self awareness. From that you can conclude, with all its empirical uncertainty, that self-awareness ceases with brain damage.

Well that too, but my own personal experiences with being rendered unconscious before surgery is also good reason to believe that is the case.

I think that’s a moot point.

Moot how?

[Nick]

Unidian I'm going to borrow a little bit of your philosophy here in regards to Sapius' last response to me...

Sticky bunz! :)

[Unidian]

Very good, grasshoppa! Now, when you can snatch this solid gold bowling ball from the palm of my hand, it is time for you to leave.

Yes, I have a solid gold bowling ball. Well, actually, I don't, but I should.

[Jamesh]

He is actually talking against that rubbish.

That doesn’t appear to be correct, but I have not read the thread in any detail.

So are you saying that a monkey knows intellectually that he is conscious, just as you or I do, because it has a “brain”?

I am saying that a monkey knows it is alive. It knows it is its own center of the universe.

I apply the same idea to any creature that can think in some manner (decide between options) and act on that thinking. I’m not so sure I’d call that intellectual knowledge though.

then, fuck off outa here. You've had enough time to learn, but refuse to.

Carl’s been here a fair while now, and this is one of the core understandings about reality. That he still believes in some form of separation or disconnection of consciousness and the rest of the universe, or the possibility of same, shows to me that he has learnt little.

I find your attitude disturbing my friend, although you seem to be quiet a composed guy otherwise. You can ask me to fuck off too, but what will you really achieve in doing that.

I’m too intolerant to be composed. While I commented in such a fashion because I was annoyed, a bit of rejection isn’t always a bad thing.

Even though I haven’t replied to you in recent times, that’s not really about what you are saying, but my pessimism about the value of truth and my own moodiness.

You don’t tend to say things i find irrational, so you don’t annoy me. Sometimes I even like you.

It is true though that consciousness is not the body, but the pattern of existence that the body provides.

You mean mind (pattern of existence = consciousness) against matter (body)?

Not really. I mean that consciousness is an effect of the body, there is no “against”.

I guess you got up from the wrong side of the bed today… :D

I’ve been fretting a lot lately about my health. Odd physical things are happening in my head. I often feel like I’m just about to have a severe stroke. I haven’t tried to find out from the medical profession what is going on as yet – to be honest I find GP’s hopeless on stuff like this – one has to see a specialist and I don’t really have enough in visible symptoms to warrant the expensive tests (no fainting or blackouts, but often most dullheaded). Been getting tonsilloliths lately. Might just need my taken tonsils out.

The main reason for my sometimes confrontational style though is that I’ve mostly lost my desire to be friendly, as a direct result of the truths here and what I’ve learnt about the nature and motivations of those who lead OR help others.

[Nordicvs]

I am saying that a monkey knows it is alive. It knows it is its own center of the universe.

If a monkey doesn't know it will die, how can it know it's alive---let alone what a universe is...?

[Carl G]

Sapius: He is actually talking against that rubbish.

Jamesh:That doesn’t appear to be correct, but I have not read the thread in any detail.

That is correct, and Jamesh, I honestly don't understand your spouting off.

Sapius: So are you saying that a monkey knows intellectually that he is conscious, just as you or I do, because it has a “brain”?

Jamesh: I am saying that a monkey knows it is alive. It knows it is its own center of the universe.

You are saying that a monkey is self-conscious and I disagree. Most people are rarely self-conscious. Why would you claim animals possess this quality?

I recently said something that caused a girl at work to become self-aware. She was shocked, mumbled something about being not a self-aware person, and promptly shut down.

Jamesh earlier: then, fuck off outa here. You've had enough time to learn, but refuse to.

Jamesh later: Carl’s been here a fair while now, and this is one of the core understandings about reality.

Been here three years, but I do not agree that a person should leave after that time if they have not got one of the core understandings.

That he still believes in some form of separation or disconnection of consciousness and the rest of the universe, or the possibility of same, shows to me that he has learnt little.

I don't see where I have shown that I believe this. Your summation of my viewpoint is patently false, and makes no sense.

Sapius: I find your attitude disturbing my friend, although you seem to be quiet a composed guy otherwise. You can ask me to fuck off too, but what will you really achieve in doing that.

Jamesh: I’m too intolerant to be composed. While I commented in such a fashion because I was annoyed, a bit of rejection isn’t always a bad thing.

No worries, mate. I took it as I usually take your posts, as the opinions of a grouchy intellectual a world away.

I’ve been fretting a lot lately about my health. Odd physical things are happening in my head. I often feel like I’m just about to have a severe stroke.

Sorry to hear this. Hope it's not too serious.

[Leyla Shen]

I was talking about consciusness in relation to death, not birth.

Oh, really? ...

N: Before we were born the causes weren't ripe to produce consciousness, there was infinite nothingness. After we die the causes will again no longer be ripe to maintain our consciousness, and once again there will be infinite nothingness.

Nick, shut up and think. It‘s the best way to develop memory. In the meantime, you’re just making it worse!

And, for the more recent record, here is your first post on the matter.

Nick wrote:

You know what things were like before you were born? That's what it's gonna be like after your dead.

Stupid word games. And you think you’re wise?

~

J: I am saying that a monkey knows it is alive. It knows it is its own center of the universe.

N: If a monkey doesn't know it will die, how can it know it's alive---let alone what a universe is...?

Course, James conveniently thinks he is a monkey.

[Leyla Shen]

I haven’t tried to find out from the medical profession what is going on as yet – to be honest I find GP’s hopeless on stuff like this – one has to see a specialist and I don’t really have enough in visible symptoms to warrant the expensive tests (no fainting or blackouts, but often most dullheaded). Been getting tonsilloliths lately. Might just need my taken tonsils out.

James, stop being so ignorantly stubborn and just go to a doctor. What, you have a death wish, or something?

[Nordicvs]

Nick wrote:

You know what things were like before you were born? That's what it's gonna be like after your dead.

Stupid word games. And you think you’re wise?

Actually, that makes sense to me---we all return to that which we were; even those cross-eyed, fussy Bible-writers figured that out, "dust to dust." Nothing to nothing. We're just blobs of atoms.

To think anything more happens is (desperate, ego-driven) wishful thinking and sheer arrogance from a species that thinks it's really, really hot shit.

If there is an "afterlife" for a mouse, then there might be one for humans; we are essentially the same type of animals.

J: I am saying that a monkey knows it is alive. It knows it is its own center of the universe.

N: If a monkey doesn't know it will die, how can it know it's alive---let alone what a universe is...?

Course, James conveniently thinks he is a monkey.

Monkey see, monkey do?

[Leyla Shen]

N:

Actually, that makes sense to me---we all return to that which we were; even those cross-eyed, fussy Bible-writers figured that out, "dust to dust." Nothing to nothing. We're just blobs of atoms.

Well, I must say, that is the perfect comparison because despite the apparent fact they’d figured that out, they seem to have made a hell of a mess out of it.

To think anything more happens is (desperate, ego-driven) wishful thinking and sheer arrogance from a species that thinks it's really, really hot shit.

Well, yes--except to think that consciousness continues on in others (animal, human or vegetable?), right?

Nonetheless, that isn’t the case here. I agree with Carl’s position 100%. This is how it went:

Nick: You know what things were like before you were born? That's what it's gonna be like after your dead.

Carl: You said nothing. Why make a post to say nothing?

Shahrazad: Because death is nothingness.

Carl: Spoken by one who knows not, makes it a subjective opinion.

Nick's original statement says less while implying the same:

You know what things were like before you were born?

No, I do not.

That's what it's gonna be like after your dead.

..?

Maybe this is just a fun thread, but as it's in Genius Forum, let's at least distinguish between fact and simple belief.

How is it, N, that you can presume to know what things were like before you were (physically) born if, according to Nick's argument, everything you know comes after it, including life and death?

It just doesn't make any sense. Nor can it be supported empirically.

[Edit for clarity.]

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I haven’t tried to find out from the medical profession what is going on as yet – to be honest I find GP’s hopeless on stuff like this – one has to see a specialist and I don’t really have enough in visible symptoms to warrant the expensive tests (no fainting or blackouts, but often most dullheaded). Been getting tonsilloliths lately. Might just need my taken tonsils out.

James, stop being so ignorantly stubborn and just go to a doctor. What, you have a death wish, or something?

Actually, he's being quite reasonable; the symptoms aren't enough to justify expensive tests. But there are things he can do that would be reasonable.

Jim,

Given your alcohol/cannibis history, a lot of things can be surmised about your symptoms, and accordingly, a number of things are likely to be helpful. Although you are at increased risk for a stroke due to the blood-thinning effects of alcohol, the mental dullness is probably being caused by the characteristic holes in the brain that these drugs cause (click here for images and explanation). Also, alcohol burns off the B vitamins, and many of the symptom you describe are symptoms of B vitamin deficiency. In addition to vitamin B, in order to rebuild damaged tissues, you will want to increase your intake of protein, essential fatty acids (flax seed oil would be good enough), and vitamins C and E. The increased vitamin C will also help reduce illness, like tonsillitis. Don't have your tonsils removed - instead of tonsillitis, you will start getting more lung infections. Also try really hard to get enough water.

If you can stop drinking and drugging, that would help. Replenishing your system with B vitamins, therefore seeing a reduction in symptoms, will take awhile (1 - 3 months of daily supplementation). Furthermore, there may be an underlying process that contributed to your turning to drugs and alcohol in the first place. Antidepressants and anti-anxiety medication (make sure it is not one that is prone to being abused) could be indicated.

In order to help rebuild your brain, you will need to exercise it more. Although you have been participating in some threads, I'm not seeing evidence of deep thinking. Furthermore, you've been doing philosophy long enough that it probably does not pose much of a challenge for you anymore. Even if something is a complex thought process, once it becomes easy for you, it is no longer doing anything to build your brain. Venture into a new territory. Even playing certain video games will help - but again, once it gets easy for you, it has stopped doing you any good. Mah Jong is a good one, as is Tetris.
.