you either turn into fertilizer...or allergen ( dust makes ppl sneeze)

I do not know.

Maybe, the only one who can answer is the one who has been there and done that.

Stand by...

Someday, I'll post a response here, when I know for sure.

Lol but what i am asking is what do you think whither it be from your Religion or whither it be from your scientific point of view or just what you think for no particular reason

I do not know what happens after death.
But I have the idea that the problem is deeply related to why we perceive ourselves. What I mean is: Even if we could perfectly understand the (human) mind, explaining why a person says that he perceives himself, it does not explain/prove why/that the person actually perceives himself. Since I perceive myself, i believe the perception of myself exist.(that others do so seems a reasonable assumption, because of it) And since no understanding of the physical manifestation can explain that, the question remains what this thing is. Another question is what happens if the physical manifestation is destroyed. (people call this thing "soul" i believe.)
Assuming souls exist, i dislike the idea of them being seperate, because of the (assumed)uniform behavior of physics, which governs their manifestations. Then again, assigning spatial positions of souls seems silly too. It is all a mystery to me.
It could, of course turn out to be a part of physics somehow, and i have said things about trying to relate randomness and quantum mechanics. However, when i do that, i realise i am grasping for straws. (At least so far)

@handy: a computer is too simple to make a good analogy. but very complicated systems can look like they have animal-like (or in future maybe human-like) behaviors. In that sense it is a good analogy, i think. Brains are machines too.

you start again, or you hang around and annoy people!

I think there is only one movie on this thematic so far: "What dreams may come true" feat. Robin Williams. I've never watched it thought.

The more i think about what happens to me when i die the more i realize that my theory changes with my out look on life. If i am in a upbeat mode or just positive in a general sense i feel that i will be going to a better life Etc. When i am in a pesimistic mood or just down right negitive i feel like theres not going to be anything there after my body dies. Either way its food for thought :-)

What I believe happens: Nothing. We die, we rot, the world moves on.

What I would want to happen: My ideal afterlife would be one of my creation. After death, I should just be plopped in my own little universe where I have control over whatever happens. So I would decide who to have there, what it looks, smells, feels like, etc. That would be the (after)life...one of my first creations would be my guitar room Man, that would be great.

Dreaming that way is fun as long as you understand that you're probably just going to die and that'll be it. We have some crazy expectations of an afterlife to ease the fear of death, but we're just like any other animal.

Thats interesting....How do we know that we arent someones Universe?

We don't, not until we die, maybe then we get our own, a spiraling action, multiple dimensions, ect...

His comment is defiantly food for thought......

eat, eat

This is how I see it also, and it complicates the question substantially. The problem with consciousness in general is that we can only be absolutely certain of our own, but not anyone else's. I am entirely certain that I am a thinking thing (as Descartes would put it), but this knowledge cannot be perceived by anyone else. Similarly, I cannot perceive anyone else's consciousness.

For example, suppose we build a machine that is every bit as complex as a human (possibly even a replica of the human). Modern scientific evidence would suggest (although the human brain is still mostly a mystery) that the machine would act exactly like a human; it will have emotions, it will describe them as feelings, it will be able to fall in love, fear death, and so on. But is this machine conscious? We have no way of telling.

A common view in neuroscience today is that the brain creates the mind, so to speak. However, I don't find this explanation convincing simply because it would imply one substance creating an entirely different substance. This is the chain of reasoning that eventually convinced Descartes of the excistence of an immaterial mind (or soul).

The problem with Cartesian dualism is that it requires two substances interacting, which is just as absurd as one substance creating another.

Here are a few questions and potential answers:

Does the soul include our memory? Highly unlikely scientifically, since it is possible to destroy (and almost certainly create) memories purely physically by poking around in the brain.

Does the soul contain our personality? Probably not, because personality has also been shown to be directly related to the state of the physical brain. After an accident in which the brain is damaged, personality can be severely altered.

Does the soul contain our intellect? For the same reasons as above, it is unlikely.

The only thing that's left for the soul to contain is then consciousness, which suggests to me that it is more of an observer than a pilot.

That indeed seems to follow from those three answers. It seems to separate our physical lives from our 'soul'. I feel a little uncomfortable with the idea from being so separate from my real life. Maybe this is where some of the ideas of shedding your relationship with life in philosophies/religions like Buddhism.
The answers do not fly if the soul is something intrinsic of the universe itself. This does not have to mean that two 'substances' are interacting, as it might be related to some deep truths about physics and the universe, many-particle/complex systems. or probability theory, if the universe is indeterministic. Those deep truths may not refer to Carthesian positions.

I will be eaten by the worms.

There is something that i am trying to understand if Buddhism follows that type of philosophy then where does Karma come in? If we are just an observer than why would we be punished if the ¨thing¨ that we are observing is doing something bad? Or is it we are following this specific ¨thing¨ to learn our own morals? Yet in that religion (which is what i try to practice) you aren't supposed to remember your past lives, you just have to learn from the choices that you had made before and deal with the consequences. (karma)

(if i have misunderstood something about Buddhism, and there is someone that can enlighten me please do)

@robert98374: I thought that some of those philosophies/religions had, a stage where people did not reincarnate. The "goal" was, then to ultimately reach that state. (I do not know too much of those religions though)
And to reach that state, next to Karma, you needed to shed your dependency on the real world, not whine about being hungry, cold, lonely, in love. I was only meaning that latter aspect. And the reason i thought that, is that i personally dislike the idea of being disconnected from the world that much.

Yes in Buddhism has something along those lines (Nirvana), Its not so much as a disconnection to the world as much as the negative things in life doesn't effect you. You are an complete peace with the yourself and everything that is in your frame of reference.
(Btw i didnt mean to sound like i was offended)