Death without Dying

[Eilonnwy]

Padraic, you say you are a recovering alcoholic...are you in AA?

Yes,although I rarely go to to meetings these days.

AA helped me a lot ,especially for the first year. I will go whenever I get ratty. (REALLY thirsty)

So far so good. I've been sober 7 years,2 months and 2 weeks exactly.

I recommend AA to any suffering alcoholic.My home group is about 40% atheist. (around 40-50 members,it varies). There are a lot more atheist in AA than most people are aware and AA will admit.At least here in Australia, which is a lot less rabidly religious than the US.

AA did not get me sober,nor did any higher power. I got me sober,by first wanting to stop,for my own sake,then by seeking and accepting help from a range of sources. I quite a 70 day smoking addiction the same way 6 months later.I had my last cigarette 14 Jan 2003.


I boast about this because it's one of the few things in my life about which think I have the right to feel proud. AND to show it can be done.

That's awesome, and something to be very proud of. I'm curious how AA works in Australia.

Here, it's way too religious. :/ People often tell me to go to Al-anon, which is a group for people living with alcoholics, but I never wanted to go because of it's basis in religion. AA is why my mother is sober, and she's been sober since 2002.

I think AA is great for people who need it, I just don't like some of the ideas it preaches, such as alcoholism being a disease and AA being the only road to recovery. My sister used to be in AA then she realized she didn't have a problem, she just had a bad time in her life, now she drinks but she doesn't have any problems with alcohol.

I've never had any issues with alcohol despite having two alcoholic parents. Unfortunately my father has tried AA and it repeatedly fails him, but he's convinced himself it's a disease and won't seek out alternate help. It's frustrating, especially since his brother, my uncle, just died from liver failure related to alcoholism.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I am not sure that the AA would be my first choice given this "Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity" and "Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him" crap. But if it helps you out, I am very glad for you.

It wasn't my first choice either,nor have I ever met anyone for whom that was the case. AA is the refuge of last resort for most members.


I make the following comments as you seem to have a common misunderstanding about AA and my views.I don't really care what you think,but I'm concerned that the misleading view you have presented might deter forum members who are suffering alcoholics. The probability of there being one or more is: 1


There is one and only one requirement for AA membership: A desire to stop drinking (changed from" an honest desire" about 20 years ago,as it was recognised a few drunks are capable of honesty)

There is one and one only firm principle; " Don't pick up the first drink"

There is no requirement to attend meetings. I never managed anything like the recommended "90 meetings in 90 days" The best I've ever done was 3 a week, for the first 2 years.Then it was one a week. Now I don't go at all,but know I will be welcome at any AA meeting at any time, anywhere in the world.

There are no dues or fees. Donations [from members only] are accepted at all meetings,but are not a condition of membership.

Although AA is described as "a 12 step programme." ( you quoted steps 2and 3) There is no requirement to complete ANY of the steps. I never have nor have any of my friends in AA. I've managed step 1, kinda managed step 4 ,and have ad hoc attempts at step 10 ****


AA's "Big Book" was written nearly 80 years ago by a pair of brain damaged alcoholics. I quote from memory : "We tried to find an easier,softer way,but we could not;--the following are 12 steps RECOMMENDED for recovery------"

From the beginning I was told "take what you need and leave the rest" ,which is exactly what I did and continue to do.


AA is deeply flawed,as an organisation and as a philosophy. EG I do not accept the illness model of as THE cause of alcoholism,but more likely as one of several . IMO The "chapter to the agnostic" in The Big book" is ignorant and shallow to the point of idiocy.

The chances of long term recovery ( 2 years or more) for AA members is less than 5% There.is NO OTHER PROGRAMME WITH A BETTER OUTCOME,as far as I'm aware.

For most AA members,there is nothing else.

I used AA as one tool of several. I do not claim now,and have never claimed that AA got me or anyone else sober. I DO claim the compassion and support of some of the members helped me help myself..

****

(1) We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.


(4)Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.


(10)Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

[Eilonnwy]

Padraic, I think that's an admirable way to approach AA, it's not the way it's approached here though. I have been to AA meetings to support my parents and I had to deal with my Aunt preaching about AA when my uncle was dying. Most of the people I know in AA treat it like religion.

But as I said before, if AA helps get you sober and stay sober, then that's good. I just don't like the way some people impose it on others.

You are right, AA has about a 5% success rate, which is the Spontaneous Remission rate. To say that nothing works better than the 5% success rate, leaves out the very important fact that it's the same as the spontaneous remission rate which exists in all types of illnesses. That means AA is no better and no worse than people who just quit and stay sober without help. Therefore, it's claims that it is the only way to stay sober is completely false. This is why I stand by my statement that if AA works for you, that's awesome and more power to you. I just dislike the insistence people have that AA is the only way to stay sober, when it's simply not true. There are rehab programs, even drugs than can help, and other support groups that don't rely on a "higher power" like Secular Sobriety. The key is to find what works for you and go with it.

A 5% success rate is nothing more than the rate of spontaneous remission in alcoholics and drug addicts. That is, out of any given group of alcoholics or drug addicts, approximately 5% per year will just wise up, and quit killing themselves.6 They just get sick and tired of being sick and tired, and of watching their friends die. (And something between 1% and 3% of their friends do die annually, so that is a big incentive.) They often quit with little or no official treatment or help. Some actually detox themselves on their own couches, or in their own beds, or locked in their own closets. Often, they don't go to a lot of meetings. They just quit, all on their own, or with the help of a couple of good friends who keep them locked up for a few days while they go through withdrawal. A.A. and N.A. true believers insist that addicts can't successfully quit that way, but they do, every day.

Every disease has a spontaneous remission rate. The rate for the common cold is basically 100 percent — almost nobody ever dies just from a cold. People routinely just "get over it", naturally. Likewise, ordinary influenza — "the flu" — has a very high spontaneous remission rate, greater than 99%. Yes, some old people do die from the flu every year, but not very many. Most people just get over it.

On the other hand, diseases like cancer and Ebola have very low spontaneous remission rates — left untreated, they are very deadly and few people recover from them.

Source: http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html

[Violet]

Okay, this is getting into some philisophical BS, but bear with me, my thoughts may be sloppy but it occurred to me in the car ride home. This might turn out to be interesting, who knows.

I would assume many atheists here do not believe in a soul, therefore no dualistic brain. Essentially, everything that makes us us, our thoughts, personality, wants, desires, etc... It all exists in the brain. Expanding on that, we believe when we die that nothing happens. We're dead...it's just like it was before we were born, a whole lot of nothing.

Considering this, say if you were to have a bad accident and you lost all your memories and you personality changes from severe brain trauma, does that mean you, essentially the person you are now, is as good as dead? I mean your body is alive, genetically you're exactly the same, it's just your personality is different and memories are gone. Is the "old" you the equivalent of dead?

Obviously the scenario has the big if of whether or not you can regain your memories and personality after therapy, so for the sake of argument, let's say it's permanent. What's your answer?

I think I currently take the stance that what makes me me is dead, and essentially I have died even if my body still remains. My body may be still alive, but my sense of self is dead.

Thoughts?

Existence itself is but two things: Difference, and change as result of that difference. Every change that happens to a person changes the person... Essentially we are always changing.... we are always redefining ourselves.

This sort of redefining can range in how drastic it is... from adding a new window decoration to the car... to painting the car... to adding, removing, modifying, or changing a part of the car... to essentially redesigning the entire car.

The body is this vehicle... and if I had word on this laptop: I would retype my 'The Identity' I think I'll do that sometime... It was a rather interesting paper

[theVOID]

Okay, this is getting into some philisophical BS, but bear with me, my thoughts may be sloppy but it occurred to me in the car ride home. This might turn out to be interesting, who knows.

I would assume many atheists here do not believe in a soul, therefore no dualistic brain. Essentially, everything that makes us us, our thoughts, personality, wants, desires, etc... It all exists in the brain. Expanding on that, we believe when we die that nothing happens. We're dead...it's just like it was before we were born, a whole lot of nothing.

Considering this, say if you were to have a bad accident and you lost all your memories and you personality changes from severe brain trauma, does that mean you, essentially the person you are now, is as good as dead? I mean your body is alive, genetically you're exactly the same, it's just your personality is different and memories are gone. Is the "old" you the equivalent of dead?

Obviously the scenario has the big if of whether or not you can regain your memories and personality after therapy, so for the sake of argument, let's say it's permanent. What's your answer?

I think I currently take the stance that what makes me me is dead, and essentially I have died even if my body still remains. My body may be still alive, but my sense of self is dead.

Thoughts?

Existence itself is but two things: Difference, and change as result of that difference. Every change that happens to a person changes the person... Essentially we are always changing.... we are always redefining ourselves.

This sort of redefining can range in how drastic it is... from adding a new window decoration to the car... to painting the car... to adding, removing, modifying, or changing a part of the car... to essentially redesigning the entire car.

The body is this vehicle... and if I had word on this laptop: I would retype my 'The Identity' I think I'll do that sometime... It was a rather interesting paper

Right... but what does that have to do with losing the summation of your entire lives experience?

And as for the car, this instance is more like replacing the engine, not redesigning the car, which would be akin to cosmetic surgery and not persona.

[puertopez]

Haha, back on track with the whole death thing. I think the important thing is to define exactly what you mean by death -- for most it means when your body fails to function anymore. Though different definitions also exist eg being brain-dead.

As Richard Feynman once said (roughly), you can know the name of a certain bird and what they call it in several different languages and yet know nothing about the bird itself. To know what something is called and to really know something, are two separate things.

So rather than conjuring up a name (death) that can at times be quite vague and undefinable, lets work from the basics upwards. If your personality has changed permanently, then is that not similar to having a theoretical whole body transplant? Then what has happened is exactly that, your body has remained the same but your brain and all the internal wiring has changed. So now you have a body with a different mind and personality.

That is all we can say about that. Whether you try to classify it as 'death' is really quite moot as it is just a word that often times is quite vague and whose definition is malleable to circumstance. If you consider 'death' to mean whether something has ceased to exist, then yes you could say that your previous mind/personality has died. Currently, there is no word to describe a situation where you have the same body but different/changed mind and personality.

Just remember, to know the name of something and to really know about that something are two very different things.

EDIT: I just read over this and somehow it seems to read different than what it was like in my mind. I hope you understand what i mean. If not, I'm new here

[fr0d0]

I'm new here

You need to go introduce yourself puertopez

[puertopez]

lol, i'm never good at introductions but I'll give it a go

[LukeMC]

I said repeatedly, part of the condition of being dead without dying is that there is no way you can come back, so temporary or not, it's irrelevant.

Because the discussion on alcoholics anonymous is surely relavent to the topic of death without dying...

As for those who are sharing their experiences of being insanely drunk while retaining their memory, I'm glad for you all, but like I stated earlier, obviously different people will react differently to alcohol and I wouldn't make the memory claim baselessly. It's from personal experience with people forgetting where they live and asking what their names are that I put forward the idea that they kill off their personalites while the body is still running. One might say that this is akin to being asleep or under anaesthetics as it is drug induced. However, these people are operating consciously (the extent to which this is true is questionable) yet under a totally different set of characteristics. Perhaps you ought to have a house party Doncaster style to get an idea of what I mean...

How is this relevant? Well, let us look at the original post:

say if you were to have a bad accident and you lost all your memories and you personality changes from severe brain trauma, does that mean you, essentially the person you are now, is as good as dead? I mean your body is alive, genetically you're exactly the same, it's just your personality is different and memories are gone. Is the "old" you the equivalent of dead?

Drunk -> act like a different person -> forget most basic aspect of your life -> wake up with no memory of the previous night -> person you were that night has died.

To address the OP directly, yes, your personality is the equivalent of dead. Of course it is. But "you" the person, the body, the mechanisms, you're still very much the same tabla rasa that you were born to be.

[Eilonnwy]

How is this relevant? Well, let us look at the original post:

say if you were to have a bad accident and you lost all your memories and you personality changes from severe brain trauma, does that mean you, essentially the person you are now, is as good as dead? I mean your body is alive, genetically you're exactly the same, it's just your personality is different and memories are gone. Is the "old" you the equivalent of dead?

Drunk -> act like a different person -> forget most basic aspect of your life -> wake up with no memory of the previous night -> person you were that night has died.

To address the OP directly, yes, your personality is the equivalent of dead. Of course it is. But "you" the person, the body, the mechanisms, you're still very much the same tabla rasa that you were born to be.

And as I said further down in the post:

Obviously the scenario has the big if of whether or not you can regain your memories and personality after therapy, so for the sake of argument, let's say it's permanent. What's your answer?

You continuously ignore that aspect of the conditions that I laid out. I think it's an important distinction. We as, as atheists, generally do not believe in life after death, so my questions was would this dramatic, albeit unlikely, but dramatic and permanent shift in personality with the loss of memories constitute as death for the self that existed before the accident?

Of course in a literal sense it does not, but I think in a figurative sense it could, especially if you don't believe in souls and afterlife...essentially, if you don't believe in an essence beyond the brain that is you.