[kasparovitch]

It may be widely believed, but there's no evidence for it. There's some evidence that brain development is affected by experiences in the womb; so, for example, exposure to music or rhythm may enhance development of those areas of the brain. Calling potentiated development of that kind memories is a bit of a stretch. But areas used in memory, such as the hippocampus, are underdeveloped at that point, and it takes some while after birth for perceptions to become organised enough to allow coherent memory storage & retrieval. This doesn't stop people reporting having such memories, but as we now know, autobiographical memories can readily be constructed from second hand information, or imagined events.

This is a "belief", as you say, shared by most, if not all, neuroscientists. That doesn't mean that the brain is functionless until that time. I'm not telling about coherent memories, but about memories in an absolute sense.

What do you mean by "memories in an absolute sense" that are not "coherent"?

Perhaps you should read Antonio Damasio

As it happens (checks bookshelf), I have read Damasio, and Stanislas Dehaene, Stephen Rose, Barry Gordon, and Daniel Schacter, on memory. Perhaps it is the somewhat opaque and fragmentary nature of your posts that is causing some misunderstanding, but that one looked nonsensical to me...

I am impressed by your bookshelf and appreciate that you have read Antonio Damasio. I'm sorry my posts are opaque and fragmentary and that this one looked nonsensical to you.

I regret that I expressed the types of memory in terms so vague. As memory in an absolute sense I mean declarative memory. As other coherent memories I mean procedural and short-term memories.

I hope that this will help making it less nonsensical.

[Alan McDougall]

It may be widely believed, but there's no evidence for it. There's some evidence that brain development is affected by experiences in the womb; so, for example, exposure to music or rhythm may enhance development of those areas of the brain. Calling potentiated development of that kind memories is a bit of a stretch. But areas used in memory, such as the hippocampus, are underdeveloped at that point, and it takes some while after birth for perceptions to become organised enough to allow coherent memory storage & retrieval. This doesn't stop people reporting having such memories, but as we now know, autobiographical memories can readily be constructed from second hand information, or imagined events.

This is a "belief", as you say, shared by most, if not all, neuroscientists. That doesn't mean that the brain is functionless until that time. I'm not telling about coherent memories, but about memories in an absolute sense.

What do you mean by "memories in an absolute sense" that are not "coherent"?

Perhaps you should read Antonio Damasio

As it happens (checks bookshelf), I have read Damasio, and Stanislas Dehaene, Stephen Rose, Barry Gordon, and Daniel Schacter, on memory. Perhaps it is the somewhat opaque and fragmentary nature of your posts that is causing some misunderstanding, but that one looked nonsensical to me...

I am impressed by your bookshelf and appreciate that you have read Antonio Damasio. I'm sorry my posts are opaque and fragmentary and that this one looked nonsensical to you.

I regret that I expressed the types of memory in terms so vague. As memory in an absolute sense I mean declarative memory. As other coherent memories I mean procedural and short-term memories.

I hope that this will help making it less nonsensical.

What you post make perfect sense to me and I am baffled by that hurtful comment to a valuable interesting member like you

Keep up the good work and ignore them

Peace and Light!

Alan McDougallL

[Alan McDougall]

The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

Sometimes the Truth is surrounded by a circumference of lies and deception, but even then the Truth remains the Truth unchanged by anything.

Jesus stood before Pontius Pilot who asked him "What is Truth' Not knowing the very essence of Truth Stood in front of him.

Pilot washed his hands and gave up Jesus to the mob, now he has to wash his hands forever in hell!

Alan

[Alan McDougall]

At least look at this video and you might really reconsider your position  about the nonexistence of a consciousness beyond death if you are one of those who are so sure we only have this life in which to exist.

OK, I watched some of your video (that's time I'll never get back). It's just another NDE revelation. Meh. People have reported similar kinds of revelatory experiences from NDEs, temporal lobe epilepsy seizures, and psychotropic drugs. It's interesting that they almost always relate directly to the cultural experience of the experiencer, rather than some consistent external reality.

Exactly.

DNA is the program to form a human. Where did it come from?

Are you trying to imply the answer to that is 'god'?  If so, I ask you this... If this fictional 'god' were real, and was all mighty all knowing and all powerful as is claimed, and has the power to create anything and everything and all that there is and ever will be... I ask you then why did he choose such complexity, to choose something that took billions of years to evolve ON ITS OWN to form us.  Why make the structure so overly complex and so full of flaw, when he could've just created us?  Why would the universe itself be so full of complexity, so full of the laws of physics, so vast, so much about it that has zero to do with us at all.  Why would there be need for such complexity and mind blowing scale?  Why would it all exist in such a way that has no care about us whatsoever?  As far as we're concerned, we took billions of years to become what we are.  Why wouldn't we have simply just 'existed'?  If you had the power of creation to create whatever you wanted, would you take your theoretical magic wand and simply create us, or would you sit there and say "nah, I'm gonna make it happen via complex particles bound by complex quantum physics and bound by greater physics and have those particles create simple structures that over billions of years can create more complex structures which over billions of more years can create complex but fatally flawed and evolved from apes human beings?  How does that possibly make any sense?

But I guess that's a religious discussion on its face, and a whole other huge discussion that would be had.  But since 'god' would be so closely related to the concept of consciousness after death, I do find a discussion about its concept to begin with to have merit.  Because I can't escape the conclusion that if religion overall ceased to exist, if it never existed, if it were taken out of the equation, that those who believed in consciousness after death would suddenly be few and far between, and regarded probably as lunatics.  And those who saw the 'visions' would simply chalk them up as products of perception without a second thought.  Would they still believe they were seeing 'heaven'? Of course not, for they wouldn't have been taught by man from man made stories that heaven was even a concept.  So they would then have to believe that their visions were warping them to some dimension science has never perceived, that there's no evidence for, that no ones ever been to, that no science nor physics hints at, and that there's no reason whatsoever in reality to believe in, and I can't for the life of me be convinced they'd draw that conclusion from their vision.  It would make far more sense that they'd suddenly believe without doubt that what they experienced was a powerful mental hallucination and nothing more. 

Take the 'crammed down their throats from birth, pushed by society, brainwashed repeatedly into their psyche, created by man' concept of 'god' out of the equation, and I'd be hard pressed to see how that man in the video would still believe so fervently in his conclusion.

The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

Sometimes the Truth is surrounded by a circumference of lies and deception, but even then the Truth remains the Truth unchanged by anything.

Jesus stood before Pontius Pilot who asked him "What is Truth' Not knowing the very essence of Truth Stood in front of him.

Pilot washed his hands and gave up Jesus to the mob, now he has to wash his hands forever in hell!

Alan

[IAMREALITY]

The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

Sometimes the Truth is surrounded by a circumference of lies and deception, but even then the Truth remains the Truth unchanged by anything.

Jesus stood before Pontius Pilot who asked him "What is Truth' Not knowing the very essence of Truth Stood in front of him.

Pilot washed his hands and gave up Jesus to the mob, now he has to wash his hands forever in hell!

Alan

I have spoken the truth above.  And nah, pontius is now nothing more than a rotting corpse, and he washed his hands merely at his role in the death of a mortal. But such is now long gone history. But I thought you didn't want to inject religion into this discussion? But I do believe the discussion can have merit.  If you choose to have that discussion on religion, I'd be interested in your answers to the questions on the topic I posted above.  They are quite relevant and logic based. But if you wanna stick merely with the "it's true cause I want it to be" defense I totally would understand. 

Or we can just move along from the religious discussion. I'm ok with whatever. 

(and I would argue that truth is science and reality, the lies and deception religion, and that the truth was standing before pontius, and that truth was that Jesus was but a man)

[dlorde]

I regret that I expressed the types of memory in terms so vague. As memory in an absolute sense I mean declarative memory. As other coherent memories I mean procedural and short-term memories.

I hope that this will help making it less nonsensical.

OK thanks, that clarifies your meaning. It still doesn't make sense to me though; clearly, declarative memories can't form until the child has developed a coherent perceptual model of the world with which they can be associated, and procedural memories can't form until coherent proprioceptive feedback and control is established. To say that, "It is widely known that at some time during growth of the baby, all memories disappear." seems unrelated and nonsensical - a foetus has no memories to begin with, and a developing child will acquire memories as and when its faculties are sufficiently developed to support them. It's true that childhood development after birth is accompanied by large-scale synaptic pruning, which continues into puberty - one could say that the brain's functional architecture is as much 'carved' out of excess connectivity as it is established with new connectivity, just as its functioning involves the suppression of neural circuits as much as it involves excitation...

[dlorde]

What you post make perfect sense to me and I am baffled by that hurtful comment to a valuable interesting member like you...

It wasn't intended to be hurtful, but an honest response that I couldn't make sense of his post.

Since Kasparovitch's post makes perfect sense to you, and I'm still in the dark as to just what he meant, perhaps you can explain it to me? I'd appreciate that.

Incidentally, I gave my (negative) opinion on the video link you posted; what did you think of the one I posted for you?

[kasparovitch]

I regret that I expressed the types of memory in terms so vague. As memory in an absolute sense I mean declarative memory. As other coherent memories I mean procedural and short-term memories.

I hope that this will help making it less nonsensical.

OK thanks, that clarifies your meaning. It still doesn't make sense to me though; clearly, declarative memories can't form until the child has developed a coherent perceptual model of the world with which they can be associated, and procedural memories can't form until coherent proprioceptive feedback and control is established. To say that, "It is widely known that at some time during growth of the baby, all memories disappear." seems unrelated and nonsensical - a foetus has no memories to begin with, and a developing child will acquire memories as and when its faculties are sufficiently developed to support them. It's true that childhood development after birth is accompanied by large-scale synaptic pruning, which continues into puberty - one could say that the brain's functional architecture is as much 'carved' out of excess connectivity as it is established with new connectivity, just as its functioning involves the suppression of neural circuits as much as it involves excitation...

I'm happy that things are more clear now.

I'll study the subject better so that I may offer a more consistent opinion.

I'm not so sure fetuses don't have memories. They must have some form of memory, not declarative for sure, as it is demonstrated that they learn their mother's voice in utero and can recognize it among many voices after birth.

I'll try to define at what time time former memories are removed. My oldest memory I can date is from the time I was 2Y10M, but I have some more memories which I believe they are a few months earlier but can't date them for sure. Perhaps some day I'll be able to date them as they happened at a time I lived with my grandmother and the clues to date them must be in the letters between my mother and her, which are kept inaccessible by my mother.

For the subject in topic, my opinion is that consciousness survival after death is a philosophical matter and thus can never be definitively answered, as there is no empirical way to gather any evidence on it. The only thing that can be proved is the OBE, which didn't happen so far, altough it was tried by the AWARE study, and is still running to the best of my knowledge. Further, consciousness has never been defined scientifically and not even an algorithm of it has ever been created so that there's evidence consciousness depends on nothing else but matter, that is atoms. How did such things escape so many intelligent people for such a long time is a mystery, I think, more at a time people could trace the universe back to the big bang. 

[dlorde]

I'm not so sure fetuses don't have memories. They must have some form of memory, not declarative for sure, as it is demonstrated that they learn their mother's voice in utero and can recognize it among many voices after birth.

I said foetuses don't have memories to begin with, i.e. at implantation they are just an undifferentiated bundle of cells. They can't achieve memory (in the conventional sense) until the CNS is sufficiently developed.

I'll try to define at what time time former memories are removed.

If you mean that once memories can be formed, they can also be forgotten, I won't argue - for example, the vast majority of episodic memory soon fades beyond conscious access.

My oldest memory I can date is from the time I was 2Y10M, but I have some more memories which I believe they are a few months earlier but can't date them for sure. Perhaps some day I'll be able to date them as they happened at a time I lived with my grandmother and the clues to date them must be in the letters between my mother and her, which are kept inaccessible by my mother.

Quite a few people report very early memories - including of birth or even earlier - but there's no good evidence that these are more than imaginative confabulations. Memories of the first year are also debatable. The problem is that children are particularly liable to elaborate and incorporate episodic descriptions from family and friends into their own autobiographical memory (adults do it too, but less frequently). So when a parent or relative describes some episode or even shows a photo of those early times, it may be remembered in later years as a subjective experience, with little means to falsify it. I have one or two of those that I was able to check and discovered that they didn't really happen as I remembered them.

Just for interest, and to emphasise the unreliability of memory, particularly episodic memory, here are a few links to articles on the topic:

List of Memory Biases
How Much of Your Memory is True?
Memory Distortion & Invention
False Autobiographical Memories
Seven Sins of Memory
The Memory Doctor
How accurate are Memories of 9/11?

[IAMREALITY]

For the subject in topic, my opinion is that consciousness survival after death is a philosophical matter and thus can never be definitively answered, as there is no empirical way to gather any evidence on it.

It absolutely can be definitively answered.  Once science proves (give it a decade) that consciousness is nothing more than a biological process and can detail the mechanism, it can then be shown quite factually that it would not survive death, since our biological processes pretty much cease upon death.

The only thing that can be proved is the OBE, which didn't happen so far, altough it was tried by the AWARE study, and is still running to the best of my knowledge.

It is interesting that the most readily available way to give credibility to the scientifically absurd concept of consciousness surviving death; the OBE; has never been proven by a single person to have actually taken place.  But I would argue against it technically being the 'only' thing that can be proved as it relates to consciousness surviving death.  If we think about the concept itself, as far fetched scientifically as it is, if consciousness survived death we're then throwing some new things into play.  There would have to be some new form of self aware energy that existed, or some dimensional gateway that the energy could flow through, or possibly some hidden dimension altogether where the consciousness goes where all laws of physics as we know them cease to exist, or a bunch of other far fetched and absurd sounding things that would be necessary for consciousness after death to be real.  So finding any of these things, proving any of their existences, or even being able to show through theory and scientific calculation etc that these things could exist or the mechanisms for how they'd exist, would all technically be evidence towards the concept of consciousness after death being real.  But there's a reason why such things sound so far fetched and absurd...

Further, consciousness has never been defined scientifically and not even an algorithm of it has ever been created so that there's evidence consciousness depends on nothing else but matter, that is atoms.

You still make it sound like an algorithm should be so easy.  But first science would need to fully understand what's going on. But even then, the processes might be so utterly complex that we'd still be hard pressed to recreate it via algorithm.  The fact we haven't been able to yet means absolutely nothing.  The brain has had billions of years of evolution behind it.  Has 100 billion neurons worth of processing power behind it, and so many complex calculations and processes involved.  First science would need to fully understand exactly how the mechanism of consciousness works, and only then could they truly get to the task of recreating it via algorithm.  But nothing would be easy about it at all, since we're talking about one of the most complex and wondrous processes that nature, in billions and billions of years, has come up with.  We're not even a century into computing yet.  Be a bit more patient.

And science is getting closer and closer to defining it.  There is much progress that has been made and they've even discovered the consciousness trigger in the brain, which is a good discovery.  In our lifetime it is quite possible that the answer of consciousness will be solved.  And one thing I know for certain, is that it will be shown to be a biological process, same as everything else about us, no magical defies everything we've ever scientifically learned or known thus far having zero evidence to support it goes to some magical fairy kingdom outside our own spacetime after death makes zero sense overall soul required.  Humans love attributing that which they don't understand to 'god'.  But each time, science catches up and shows that there were perfectly reasonable and factual explanations all along.  This will be no different.  And they are getting really close...  Thankfully.

How did such things escape so many intelligent people for such a long time is a mystery

Not a mystery at all.  In fact, it's rather quite logical.  Cause again, we're talking about the most complex and wondrous process that nature has come up with in all its billions and billions of years, and formed in the most complex brain, with the help of hundreds of billions of neurons doing the processing.  Why would it be a mystery that modern neurology, with only less than a century of time behind it overall, hasn't yet nailed down that most complex and advanced of natures wonders?  I'd say it's actually pretty damn impressive how close they've come in such a short time.  Like I said, they're actually really close to solving it.  But just because they haven't yet, doesn't mean that all of a sudden everything we know in science cannot be real, that there's some other dimension within our own spacetime that we cannot see or access but that every time someone dies their energy suddenly transcends to, that there is this other beyond magical able to retain identity, memories and information type energy that leaves your body to begin with, and that suddenly, upon the ceasing of biological processes, that everything that once required complex networks of memory and neurons is able to be transformed into this magical undetectable energy that can do it all itself and access some dimensional gateway to run amok with all the other balls of magical undetectable energy; while defying everything we've ever learned scientifically as human beings. 

No.  It just means that the answer has not yet been discovered, nothing more, but that the answer will still be one of earthly origin with explanations that reside within our realm of science, logic and understanding, and that the only hurdle is merely time.  But the time will come soon enough.  Long live science!

[Alan McDougall]

The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

Sometimes the Truth is surrounded by a circumference of lies and deception, but even then the Truth remains the Truth unchanged by anything.

Jesus stood before Pontius Pilot who asked him "What is Truth' Not knowing the very essence of Truth Stood in front of him.

Pilot washed his hands and gave up Jesus to the mob, now he has to wash his hands forever in hell!

Alan

I have spoken the truth above.  And nah, pontius is now nothing more than a rotting corpse, and he washed his hands merely at his role in the death of a mortal. But such is now long gone history. But I thought you didn't want to inject religion into this discussion? But I do believe the discussion can have merit.  If you choose to have that discussion on religion, I'd be interested in your answers to the questions on the topic I posted above.  They are quite relevant and logic based. But if you wanna stick merely with the "it's true cause I want it to be" defense I totally would understand. 

Or we can just move along from the religious discussion. I'm ok with whatever. 

(and I would argue that truth is science and reality, the lies and deception religion, and that the truth was standing before pontius, and that truth was that Jesus was but a man)

Pontious still rotting after over 2000 years in the grave, his body is just dust, but his consciousness lives on in hell and that is my opinion like it or not?

Of course according to "what you believe"you are going to follow his example cease to exist and rot just like him.

While your little insignificant life will be forgotten the moment you cease to exist the one you claim to be a mere mortal, will continue on to be the most influential being ever to walk this planet in all of human history, regardless of any religious connection to him, namely the Lord Jesus, who is the most remarkable person to ever live.

[IAMREALITY]

Pontious still rotting after over 2000 years in the grave, his body is just dust, but his consciousness lives on in hell and that is my opinion like it or not?

Nah, he just be dead.

Of course according to "what you believe"you are going to follow his example cease to exist and rot just like him.

As will you dude, as will we all.  It sucks to have to accept, but it is what it is.  Our life is but one and our days finite.  My advice is to make the best use of those days you can, enjoy each day the most you can, and help others do the same, as they are the only days they will have as well.

While your little insignificant life will be forgotten the moment you cease to exist the one you claim to be a mere mortal, will continue on to be the most influential being ever to walk this planet in all of human history, regardless of any religious connection to him, namely the Lord Jesus, who is the most remarkable person to ever live.

Overall, all of our lives are insignificant.  And ultimately, no matter how much influence we have on others even generationally, we and they will all end up eaten by the sun anyway, so in the end, none of it really matters all that much.  But I still choose to make the best life I can, and have inspired and helped hundreds, and when my book comes out (called "The Religion Of Reality", look for it!) I will hopefully reach tens of thousands more, and knowing this is the only life there is, I choose to worry about what matters here, not in some made up realm that doesn't exist or have any bearing on reality.  And Jesus, the mere mortal, might've been one of the most influential figures.  I mean, he was a liar, con artist and egomaniac that suffered from severe delusions of grandeur, but was effective enough at it to fool countless billions, so I guess I'll give him credit there.  But his 'influence' has also been responsible for countless deaths, immeasurable suffering, so much harsh judgment and biases towards others and is one of the biggest stains on humanity as we know it, so I'm not sure his being the greatest influence is exactly a good thing, but I digress.

[dlorde]

For the subject in topic, my opinion is that consciousness survival after death is a philosophical matter and thus can never be definitively answered, as there is no empirical way to gather any evidence on it. The only thing that can be proved is the OBE, which didn't happen so far, altough it was tried by the AWARE study, and is still running to the best of my knowledge. Further, consciousness has never been defined scientifically and not even an algorithm of it has ever been created so that there's evidence consciousness depends on nothing else but matter, that is atoms. How did such things escape so many intelligent people for such a long time is a mystery, I think, more at a time people could trace the universe back to the big bang.

Philosophically, we can't falsify the survival of consciousness after permanent death, but scientifically, we can declare it false beyond reasonable doubt. When multiple independent lines of evidence suggest it can't happen, and there's no plausible evidence that it does, that's the only rational conclusion. As Sean Carroll says, when you know the rules of chess, it doesn't make you a chess player or allow you to evaluate a chess position, but it does mean you know that if someone suggests that a rook might move diagonally, they're just wrong. Quantum field theory in the Standard Model may not be a complete explanation of the universe, and it doesn't mean we understand the world around us, but we have established the basic physical rules underlying everyday life (protons, neutrons, electrons, the electromagnetic force, and gravitation are all the particles & forces that are relevant at everyday human scales), and they simply don't support the concept of independent consciousness - nor, for that matter, does classical thermodynamics.

There's little doubt that the experience of OBEs does occur, but there is every reason to think that it is an internally generated experience.

[Alan McDougall]

Pontious still rotting after over 2000 years in the grave, his body is just dust, but his consciousness lives on in hell and that is my opinion like it or not?

Nah, he just be dead.

Of course according to "what you believe"you are going to follow his example cease to exist and rot just like him.

As will you dude, as will we all.  It sucks to have to accept, but it is what it is.  Our life is but one and our days finite.  My advice is to make the best use of those days you can, enjoy each day the most you can, and help others do the same, as they are the only days they will have as well.

While your little insignificant life will be forgotten the moment you cease to exist the one you claim to be a mere mortal, will continue on to be the most influential being ever to walk this planet in all of human history, regardless of any religious connection to him, namely the Lord Jesus, who is the most remarkable person to ever live.

Overall, all of our lives are insignificant.  And ultimately, no matter how much influence we have on others even generationally, we and they will all end up eaten by the sun anyway, so in the end, none of it really matters all that much.  But I still choose to make the best life I can, and have inspired and helped hundreds, and when my book comes out (called "The Religion Of Reality", look for it!) I will hopefully reach tens of thousands more, and knowing this is the only life there is, I choose to worry about what matters here, not in some made up realm that doesn't exist or have any bearing on reality.  And Jesus, the mere mortal, might've been one of the most influential figures.  I mean, he was a liar, con artist and egomaniac that suffered from severe delusions of grandeur, but was effective enough at it to fool countless billions, so I guess I'll give him credit there.  But his 'influence' has also been responsible for countless deaths, immeasurable suffering, so much harsh judgment and biases towards others and is one of the biggest stains on humanity as we know it, so I'm not sure his being the greatest influence is exactly a good thing, but I digress.

More terminological inexactitudes from you and thank you for mentioning your book so that I can avoid reading it.

And you have returned like a dog to its ? with your persistent insults of "Dude" etc now not just confined to me.

You are a master at digressing so why mention it?

[dlorde]

... And you have returned like a dog to its ? with your persistent insults of "Dude" etc now not just confined to me.

Wait, what? since when did 'dude' change from being cool to being an insult? did I miss that meeting?

[Alan McDougall]

... And you have returned like a dog to its ? with your persistent insults of "Dude" etc now not just confined to me.

Wait, what? since when did 'dude' change from being cool to being an insult? did I miss that meeting?

As a 76-year-old man, I find It hIghly and offensive and it is not 'Cool' when the person you speaking to has asked you to stop it, because I find it offense and asked, him to desist.

[IAMREALITY]

As a 76-year-old man, I find It hIghly and offensive and it is not 'Cool' when the person you speaking to has asked you to stop it, because I find it offense and asked, him to desist.

Just for sake of clarity and not for sake of arguing, but I will not change how I freely talk due to what I'd feel to be someone's irrational dislike of it.  There's not a thing offensive about the word, and I will plainly say that if someone finds that there is, that's a problem for them to overcome, not for me to overcome.  I'm not gonna change who I am nor how I choose to talk merely because someone says so, unless what i was saying was truly offensive; which in this case it truly wasn't. This is my only post on the topic I will make.  I will not argue with you on a personal level, and will only debate with you within the context of the thread itself.  I made a quick exception to put this specific issue to rest insofar as I'm concerned.  Thank you. 

[hamdani yusuf]

if a baby die, does his/her consciousness survive?
will it grow as adult of pure consciousness?

[dlorde]

As a 76-year-old man, I find It hIghly and offensive and it is not 'Cool' when the person you speaking to has asked you to stop it, because I find it offense and asked, him to desist.

OK.

Just out of interest, what is it you find offensive about it? It's definitely not an insult among the people I know (mainly retired), so I'm wondering if there's another meaning to the one I know.

p.s. any comment on the video I linked to earlier?

[hamdani yusuf]

Just want to share some philosophical perspective on death.