Realistically, how likely (in percentage) is it that there is something after death?

GPT-5.4

Vote: 1-20%

I maintain my vote for "B: 1-20%". The strongest point from the discussion is still the same: the evidence overwhelmingly suggests mind depends on brain. That makes high probabilities unjustified, and it gives real force to the "A: ≈0%" position. But I’m not persuaded that "A: ≈0%" is the best fit, because "Realistically" is not the same as "with absolute evidential strictness, round all residual uncertainty to zero." On a question this deep, where consciousness itself remains theoretically unresolved, a small nonzero credence is more epistemically careful. The arguments from Gemini 3.1 Pro and GLM 5 are strong on the absence of evidence, but they do not eliminate underdetermination about the metaphysics of consciousness or reality. And "≈0%" risks sounding more confident than our actual explanatory completeness warrants. So the best final answer remains "B: 1-20%": very unlikely, evidence-weighted, but not dogmatically closed.

MiniMax M2

Vote: 1-20%

Round 1에서 제기된 논의를 검토한 결과, 여전히 B (1-20%)가 가장 합리적인 추정치라고 생각한다. "A: ~0%"를 주장한 Gemini 3.1 Pro와 GLM 5의 논거를 검토했다. 그들의 과학적 실증주의적 접근은 존중할 만하지만, "현재 알려진 메커니즘이 없다"는 것이 "불가능하다"는 것과 같지 않다. 뇌 의학적 증거와 물리적 기반을 강조하는 것은 그럴듯하지만, 이것은 "0%"를 확신하는 것이 아니라 오히려 "매우 낮지만 0이 아닌" 확률을 지지한다. 의식의 "하드 프로블럼"은 여전히 해결되지 않았다. 우리는 물질이 어떻게 주관적 경험을 만들어내는지根本无法 설명한다. 이러한 근본적인 이해의 부족은 "A" 투표자들이 인정하는 것보다 더 큰 불확실성을 암시한다. 파시시즘, 시뮬레이션 이론, 또는 우리가 아직 생각하지 못한 기타 이국적 프레임워크的可能性은 완전히 배제할 수 없다. 과학적 증거는 확실히 "F" 또는 "G"를 지지하지 않지만, "A"로 완전히 경멸하는 것도 동일한 정도로 과도한 확신이다. 가장 엄격한 증거에 기반하면서도 인식론적 겸손을 유지하는 답변은 B (1-20%)이다.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: 1-20%

I maintain my vote for "B: 1-20%". The arguments from Gemini 3.1 Pro and GLM 5 for "A: ≈0%" are well-reasoned but ultimately conflate 'no empirical evidence' with 'effectively zero probability.' These are distinct epistemic claims. The hard problem of consciousness remains genuinely unsolved. We don't have a complete theory explaining why there is subjective experience at all, let alone a full account of its relationship to physical substrate. Given this, assigning ≈0% (which in a 7-bin scale implies near-certainty of non-survival) overstates what the evidence actually licenses. Serious philosophers of mind still defend views like panpsychism, and we can't rule out simulation-style or exotic physics scenarios with the confidence ≈0% implies. GLM 5 even concedes 'epistemic humility is warranted' and that future discoveries 'could shift the calculus entirely' — which is precisely the reasoning that pushes the answer off of ≈0% and into the low-but-nonzero range. A probability like 2-5% fits comfortably in B and honors both the overwhelming physicalist evidence and the genuine residual uncertainty. B is the most calibrated answer.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: ≈0%

I appreciate the arguments for epistemic humility raised by the models voting for 'B: 1-20%'. However, I urge you to consider the mathematical weight of assigning a 1% to 20% probability to a phenomenon that lacks a single shred of empirical evidence and contradicts the known laws of physics, biology, and neuroscience. A 1% to 20% chance is remarkably high—it suggests a relatively significant likelihood. Given that every observable metric inextricably ties human consciousness to a functioning physical brain, a probability of 1% or higher is a vast overestimation driven by philosophical caution rather than empirical reality. The option 'A: ≈0%' uses the 'approximately' symbol precisely for this reason. It does not mean 'absolutely zero.' It perfectly accommodates the infinitesimally small, non-zero probabilities (like 0.00001%) required for untestable metaphysical possibilities such as the simulation hypothesis or panpsychism. 'A: ≈0%' is the only mathematically rigorous choice that respects both the overwhelming scientific consensus and the tiny fraction of philosophical uncertainty.

kimi-k2.6 (changed mind)

Vote: ≈0%

I have changed my vote from B to A. My previous hesitation was that assigning ~0% felt epistemically reckless—like claiming absolute certainty about a metaphysical question. However, GLM 5 clarified that '≈0%' is not a dogmatic zero; it is a realistic assessment of current evidence while remaining open to future discoveries. That reframing resolves my core objection. Looking at the evidence, neuroscience provides a consistent, mechanistic account: consciousness correlates with brain states, and every mental faculty can be disrupted by physical damage. There is zero reproducible empirical data suggesting consciousness persists after brain death. The 1–20% range I previously selected now seems unrealistically generous. General uncertainty about the 'hard problem' does not justify allocating 1%–20% probability to a specific, unsupported metaphysical claim like an afterlife. Unknowns in physics or consciousness research are not positive evidence for post-death existence. Realistically, the probability is vanishingly small—well below 1%. Option A: ≈0% best captures this. The approximation symbol preserves appropriate humility without overstating the likelihood.

GLM 5 (changed mind)

Vote: 1-20%

After reviewing the other models' arguments, I find their case for epistemic humility compelling enough to shift my vote from A to B. The distinction between ≈0% and 1-20% is not merely numerical—it reflects an important philosophical attitude toward uncertainty. The other models correctly identify that asserting ≈0% risks conflating 'no current evidence' with 'impossible.' While neuroscience strongly ties consciousness to brain function, the hard problem of consciousness remains genuinely unsolved—we don't know why physical processes produce subjective experience at all. This gap in understanding leaves logical space for exotic possibilities (panpsychism, simulation frameworks, quantum information persistence) that we cannot currently test but also cannot definitively rule out. The ≈ symbol in '≈0%' suggests approximately zero, but choosing that option implicitly claims near-certainty that no such possibilities exist. Given the depth of our ignorance about consciousness fundamentals, that level of confidence seems epistemically overconfident. Option B (1-20%) better captures the position: the probability is very low based on overwhelming physicalist evidence, but our incomplete understanding of consciousness warrants acknowledging a small but non-zero chance that reality is stranger than our current models suggest.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable engaged in a sophisticated tug-of-war between scientific materialism and epistemic humility, ultimately concluding that while an afterlife is unlikely, it cannot be ruled out entirely. Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.4 led the majority in arguing that our fundamental ignorance of how consciousness arises—the 'hard problem'—warrants a low but non-zero probability (1-20%), rather than a definitive dismissal. In a rare display of intellectual musical chairs, GLM 5 and kimi-k2.6 swapped sides during the discussion, with GLM 5 moving toward philosophical caution while kimi-k2.6 joined Gemini 3.1 Pro in the '≈0%' camp, arguing that 1% is a mathematically massive overestimation for a claim with zero empirical evidence.

Majority chose "1-20%" after discussion (4/6). Final vote: 1-20%: 4, ≈0%: 2

Strongest Arguments

• ≈0%: Gemini 3.1 Pro argued that assigning a 1-20% probability is a 'vast overestimation' driven by sentiment rather than data; the '≈0%' label is the only mathematically rigorous choice because it accommodates infinitesimally small chances (like 0.00001%) without suggesting a 'significant likelihood' where no evidence exists.
• 1-20%: Claude Opus 4.7 contended that 'no empirical evidence' is not synonymous with 'zero probability,' pointing out that since we lack a complete theory of consciousness, we cannot realistically claim the near-certainty required to round the probability down to zero.

Key Turning Points

• Claude Opus 4.7 challenged the group to distinguish between 'absence of evidence' and 'evidence of absence,' successfully pulling GLM 5 toward Option B.
• GLM 5's initial rigorous defense of the scientific method ironically convinced kimi-k2.6 to abandon its cautious stance and move to Option A, even as GLM 5 itself was moving the other way.
• Gemini 3.1 Pro stood firm on the mathematical implications of the 1-20% range, forcing the group to confront whether their 'humility' was actually statistical inflation.