Thread: After you die.

Originally Posted by juroara

Come on now, you know that argument doesn't work. Lots of people have NDEs when they go under, when they are unconscious, when they have been declared dead - even up to an hour or more. You just don't believe these people and what they have experienced.

NDE: Near Death Experience. How is a tooth extraction under anesthesia an NDE?

Also, love as a chemical reaction means that love is nothing more but a feel good emotion you feel. A feeling which stays inside of you and doesn't influence your reality in any way except in how you act.

What's wrong with that? The brain is incredibly powerful. So are the emotions it can feel.

What people consider to be spiritual love however isn't just a feel good emotion limited to your physical body. It's a love that transcends the body and is able to interact with other beings. So that other beings can literally feel your love too.

They perceive it to transcend their body.

In other words, love as a chemical reaction isn't really love. It's just a feel good emotion that even chocolate stimulates.

Yeah...I'm gonna go with chemical reaction. If the brain can hallucinate vividly multiple times each night, I certainly wouldn't put it past it to create a strong emotional response.

And chocolate is delicious. Of course it's gonna create feelings of satisfaction. I know what you're talking about, though. While chocolate does produce certain chemicals within the brain that make the consumer feel better, it is by no means on the same playing field as love.

On the other hand, the love defined by new heart-brain science defines love as an energetic connection between living things. With heart-brain science, not only does being in a loving state make you feel good, it promotes the same well being in others directly. Love then, isn't just a chemical reaction trapped in your body, it's something real and tangible that binds us.

There was a fun bit of research that was posted in a thread here a while back. Humans emit elecromagnetic fields. People can pick up on one another's heart rate from across the room. The question is this: Is it a spiritual response, or a physical one? In other words, if you come across someone in love, you may very well pick up on that by their expression, body language, and perhaps the electromagnetic field. This would go for all emotions. Hanging around stressed people stresses you out as well, eh? Again, physical or spiritual response?

Originally Posted by Mario92

I'd respond maturely and elaborately, but we seem to be going in circles. I have my way of thinking, and you have yours. We have reached an impasse. I cannot compromise my need for good evidence, and you aren't going to compromise your beliefs. Short of offering up a silver plate full of afterlife, there isn't much you can do.

Missing the forest for the trees.

Let me rephrase my philosophy: if it can't be detected in any way, shape, or form, why should I believe it exists? Going back to basic logic: you are making the positive claim. The burden of proof is your problem, not mine. What you are doing is tantamount to believing in unicorns and asking me to prove they don't exist.

Huh? Mario YOU cannot be detected in any way, shape or form, why should you believe you exist? Is that what you're asking? Let's leave this up to you. This is the point.

You, whatever you are, only know of existence. Forget chemical reactions, brain function, and all that bs. That comes later from your thinking. At first, you only know existence. There's nothing you can do to change that.

A reminder:

You said: "Yes, I only know of existence. Of course, I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in anything beyond existence." Is this NOT provable? This is consciousness. Purely subjective. It cannot be detected in any way, shape, or form, because it is all shapes and forms, and beyond.

Originally Posted by Crow360

I don't understand why anybody would want to even try to comprehend reality, death, and everything in between. Us as a species were not meant to find out any answers to these questions, so it's a waste of time to even be wondering about something we know so little about.

People do it because they're intrigued and want to know more, and to some people it can be a waste of time, but that's not entirely true. You can know more, yet at some point that knowledge has to take a shift from conceptual to experiential - after all that is just what life is.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Yeah...I'm gonna go with chemical reaction.

Such nonsense dude. Why don't you just say everything is a chemical reaction?

It's so dumb in the end. "Chemical reaction" is just a descriptive concept toward substance.

Originally Posted by really

Huh? Mario YOU cannot be detected in any way, shape or form, why should you believe you exist? Is that what you're asking? Let's leave this up to you. This is the point.

You, whatever you are, only know of existence. Forget chemical reactions, brain function, and all that bs. That comes later from your thinking. At first, you only know existence. There's nothing you can do to change that.

A reminder:

You said: "Yes, I only know of existence. Of course, I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in anything beyond existence." Is this NOT provable? This is consciousness. Purely subjective. It cannot be detected in any way, shape, or form, because it is all shapes and forms, and beyond.

I must be missing something, here. I can be detected. I can use my eyes and stare in the mirror. Other people passing me on the street can see me. I am perfectly detectable in this world we inhabit, or perceive to inhabit. And this world, built on stable rules and set principles, is all that matters. If there are any other world, it doesn't really matter. It is beyond detection. If we can detect it, it matters. I know of existence in that I exist. I think, I can move my arms about, I can feel happiness.

Such nonsense dude. Why don't you just say everything is a chemical reaction?

It's so dumb in the end. "Chemical reaction" is just a descriptive concept toward substance.

Everything is a chemical reaction.

Originally Posted by Mario92

I must be missing something, here. I can be detected.

This is the crucial point. You are missing it because of associations. Somebody cannot "detect" your substrata of your knowledge of existence. Only you can confirm that, and that does not ask for even your own detection. It is totally in the experience, it is only subjective. You know that only the objective can be detected. But life is ultimately not objective, it is subjective; it is in consciousness. This is my summary.

Originally Posted by really

This is the crucial point. You are missing it because of associations. Somebody cannot "detect" your substrata of your knowledge of existence. Only you can confirm that, and that does not ask for even your own detection. It is totally in the experience, it is only subjective. You know that only the objective can be detected. But life is ultimately not objective, it is subjective; it is in consciousness. This is my summary.

Christ, you're worse than Philosopher.

Here is my summary: I know I'm conscious. I am in control of a body in a reality I perceive to inhabit. There are some things we cannot yet collect evidence for. I can, however, make very good educated guesses about my reality based on what I know. It wouldn't be likely for everyone else to not be conscious. It would be highly illogical.

Inside my sad little fantasy reality, that still does not alleviate the requirement for evidence. I would not consider evolution valid without evidence. Gravity, minus any evidence, loses validity. It may exist, but that force is not known as gravity to me. Same goes for any sort of spiritual matter. I can make assumptions in day-to-day life no problem. I have to. But this is a very large question. I'm gonna need to see some verification.

Originally Posted by Mario92

There was a fun bit of research that was posted in a thread here a while back. Humans emit elecromagnetic fields. People can pick up on one another's heart rate from across the room. The question is this: Is it a spiritual response, or a physical one? In other words, if you come across someone in love, you may very well pick up on that by their expression, body language, and perhaps the electromagnetic field. This would go for all emotions. Hanging around stressed people stresses you out as well, eh? Again, physical or spiritual response?

The answer is what you consider to be spiritual. If you are coming from a Christian understanding of what is and what is not spiritual, then the answer is simple. NO! If science can talk about it it is never spiritual and it is always physical. Because according to Christianity, heaven is fundamentally SEPARATE from us.


But...... Christianity is not the only religion that believes in spirit

I look for the most universal understanding of spirit - across all religions throughout various cultures. This defines spirit as an "invisible" force that governs the visible physical world. Such as the gods. And since spirit governs the physical "mortal" world, this makes spirit transcendent. Because spirit is transcendent of the physical world, that which is spiritual is a means to help you transcend the physical world. Spirit is also a vehicle to carry consciousness in. Consciousness is key. If you don't believe God is conscious, you don't believe in God.

Today it is believed that what ancient cultures called spirit science calls energy. Energy on the quantum level is invisible, except in that small sliver of visible light, and governs the physical reality. Energy is capable of producing all the dazzling effects attributed to divine beings - from the sheer power of divine beings, to their radiant rainbow halos. Spirituality today even defines heavenly worlds as realities at higher frequencies.

When trying to understand spirituality in scientific terms, we then turn to the science that studies the energy that governs the physical world. Which is why there are so many spiritual people today interested in new discoveries and developments with quantum physics, mechanics, and biophysics. What we are trying to find is evidence of spirit's role as a vehicle to carry consciousness in.

In other words what we are trying to find is the capacity of energy to carry consciousness, and how fundamental it is to our life and reality. 'Spirit' is fundamental.

Physical or spiritual response? That's slightly missing the point.

In this spiritual-scientific quest, the quest isn't to find what is spiritual - or what is physical. But just the opposite!! The quest is to merge and integrate the two into one holistic view of reality. Just ONE reality. Not two.



Let's pretend for a moment that this human electromagnetic-field is crucial to communicating all of our emotions. Let's pretend that our emotions aren't just physical sensations - but compact messages of conscious intention. Such as anger carrying the intent to harm. Or compassion carrying the intention to heal a wound. This kind of conscious intention communication actually exceeds words. Words take time to communicate a conscious intention. Emotions on the other hand carries complex thoughts and ideas instantly.

Our only problem would be is, how clear our mind is, or is there too much static to understand the message.

But why would this kind of discovery be spiritual? Because of it's implications potentially change our world view to a spiritual one.

Where does an emotional communication begin and end, if the earth has it's own electromagnetic-field? If humans can pick up on each others fields, can they pick up on the earth's field? And what would it feel like to tune into the earth's field 'if' we can? Would it be an emotional experience? How emotional? THE FIELD IS HUGE IN COMPARISON! Would it be 'divine'?

Would this explain why ancient cultures believed the earth was alive? And not only alive, but a goddess? Is this why Avatar resonated so deeply with viewers? Do we subconsciously remember a time in human history, where we could easily tune into the earth's field? And experience something sublime? At least in the time of lush rainforests.

And since these experiments suggest we emotionally influence each other via our own fields - do we influence the earth?

Does the earth's unstable field threatening to flop on us, partly due to our state of suffering and rise in depression? Or is it the other way around? Does the field becoming unstable make us depressed and apathetic?


I don't have answers. I only ask questions.

Originally Posted by juroara

The answer is what you consider to be spiritual. If you are coming from a Christian understanding of what is and what is not spiritual, then the answer is simple. NO! If science can talk about it it is never spiritual and it is always physical. Because according to Christianity, heaven is fundamentally SEPARATE from us.

At least we are in agreement here.

I look for the most universal understanding of spirit - across all religions throughout various cultures. This defines spirit as an "invisible" force that governs the visible physical world. Such as the gods. And since spirit governs the physical "mortal" world, this makes spirit transcendent. Because spirit is transcendent of the physical world, that which is spiritual is a means to help you transcend the physical world. Spirit is also a vehicle to carry consciousness in. Consciousness is key. If you don't believe God is conscious, you don't believe in God.

I don't believe in god. If you look throughout history, you can generally find that gods have proven utterly unnecessary. Remember all the Greek gods? The gods of wine and harvest and whatnot? Absolutely unnecessary. But in those times, gods like that made sense because people didn't understand how things worked. Now we do have science and other things that can explain wine fermentation and weather patterns quite nicely. People then jumped the spiritual gun, just as people now are doing. We've never found one solid reason why some spiritual being must exist to guide the physical world. If in this day and age we're observing unexplained phenomena and can't put forth evidence to back up spiritual claims, I'm not going to jump on the spiritual wagon. Until we have solid evidence, for or against spirituality, I'm calling unexplained events exactly that: unexplained.

When trying to understand spirituality in scientific terms, we then turn to the science that studies the energy that governs the physical world. Which is why there are so many spiritual people today interested in new discoveries and developments with quantum physics, mechanics, and biophysics. What we are trying to find is evidence of spirit's role as a vehicle to carry consciousness in.

And I encourage you to kindly carry on, so that we may finally begin to understand some of the unusual things we've been seeing.

In other words what we are trying to find is the capacity of energy to carry consciousness, and how fundamental it is to our life and reality. 'Spirit' is fundamental.

I attest it isn't.

In this spiritual-scientific quest, the quest isn't to find what is spiritual - or what is physical. But just the opposite!! The quest is to merge and integrate the two into one holistic view of reality. Just ONE reality. Not two.

Alright, riddle me this: why can't there be just one physical reality?

Let's pretend for a moment that this human electromagnetic-field is crucial to communicating all of our emotions. Let's pretend that our emotions aren't just physical sensations - but compact messages of conscious intention. Such as anger carrying the intent to harm. Or compassion carrying the intention to heal a wound. This kind of conscious intention communication actually exceeds words. Words take time to communicate a conscious intention. Emotions on the other hand carries complex thoughts and ideas instantly.

Not quite instantly, as it were. You have to be within a specific range and your brain has to have time to react. And since when is anger pure, concentrated harm? If I personally am going to get angry, the furthest action from my mind is going to be to throw you out the nearest window.

Our only problem would be is, how clear our mind is, or is there too much static to understand the message.

But why would this kind of discovery be spiritual? Because of it's implications potentially change our world view to a spiritual one.

That is called circular logic. "Why is it spiritual? It changes our world view. Why does it change our world view? Because it is spiritual..." Also note the "potentially." You admit that there is too little to go on...that outside factors may be meddling with the results. Ergo, unexplained, or better, poorly-understood phenomenon. It should be treated as such, not as proof of spirituality.

Where does an emotional communication begin and end, if the earth has it's own electromagnetic-field? If humans can pick up on each others fields, can they pick up on the earth's field? And what would it feel like to tune into the earth's field 'if' we can? Would it be an emotional experience? How emotional? THE FIELD IS HUGE IN COMPARISON! Would it be 'divine'?

Fine questions. Study away. Shed some light on the situation. But if we've been living inside this field for our entire lives, and if we are indeed able to pick up the fields of other people, what makes you think this is something that needs to be "tuned into?"

Would this explain why ancient cultures believed the earth was alive? And not only alive, but a goddess? Is this why Avatar resonated so deeply with viewers? Do we subconsciously remember a time in human history, where we could easily tune into the earth's field? And experience something sublime? At least in the time of lush rainforests.

Perhaps they believed it was alive because it damn well seemed that way a lot of the time. Did something bad? Flood. Forget to pray a few times? Poor harvest. Crashingly huge storms seemingly out of the blue every now and then to keep us on our toes. When you're staring that kind of raw power in the face and you can't explain it, you have two options: admit you don't know and call it an unexplained phenomenon, or revert to faith and blame it on some spiritual being. The latter has held true far more than the former. So, when you've got people believing in a spiritual thing already, then personifying things like storms and associating them with punishment, of course people are going to think the earth is alive (and sometimes out to get them, at that).

And since these experiments suggest we emotionally influence each other via our own fields - do we influence the earth?

Another valid question. I eagerly await the findings.

Does the earth's unstable field threatening to flop on us, partly due to our state of suffering and rise in depression? Or is it the other way around? Does the field becoming unstable make us depressed and apathetic?

What about option 3: neither. We've observed magnetic reversals before, and long before any humans were walking the face of the earth. It seems like a pretty regularly timed event, actually. Can't it just be a natural process?

I don't have answers. I only ask questions.

Questioning is good. I still don't understand the faith thing and I probably never will, but I wish you the best of luck.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Alright, riddle me this: why can't there be just one physical reality?

Maybe there is just one physical reality in some aspect, but the physical realm is not the only dimension of reality as a total. You see, materialism is a meme that is inseparable from a subjective conclusion; a non-materialistic premise. The materialist can only avoid that by ignorance and hypocrisy. You don't seem to acknowledge spiritual reality for similar reasons why you cannot be bothered acknowledging your own subjective premise. Spiritual investigation is about investigating inner experience, and the after-life is very much a spiritual matter because it stems from the nature of life itself, which is fundamentally not a lot more than that.

Originally Posted by really

Maybe there is just one physical reality in some aspect, but the physical realm is not the only dimension of reality as a total. You see, materialism is a meme that is inseparable from a subjective conclusion; a non-materialistic premise. The materialist can only avoid that by ignorance and hypocrisy. You don't seem to acknowledge spiritual reality for similar reasons why you cannot be bothered acknowledging your own subjective premise. Spiritual investigation is about investigating inner experience, and the after-life is very much a spiritual matter because it stems from the nature of life itself, which is fundamentally not a lot more than that.

Okay, what the hell are you talking about with this subjective experience thing? Is it that I can't technically "prove" anything actually exists? I'm calling bollocks on that argument. I may not be able to prove anything at all here exists, but it doesn't matter. This reality, this stable universe I perceive to inhabit, is what matters. It might be an illusion, sure, but it doesn't matter. Every day, I wake up in the same bed and go about my routine life. I'm not waking up in a bag of jelly, connected to the Matrix, and until I do so, I have no reason to think it actually exists. Evidence, dear Watson, is what matters. My senses may be subjective, but they lead me to objective conclusions about this universe. Things like most other people have the ability to talk back to you, or jumping off of buildings is a bad idea, or stop signs are the color I've been told is red. If you want to be more precise about the exact color of stop signs, they reflect a wavelength of light between 650 nm and 750 nm long. These are objective facts about our universe. When you wake up tomorrow, stop signs won't have turned blue. You CAN use your senses to observe the universe in which you live and make conclusions about it. I have not observed any spiritual realm, ghosts, angels, an afterlife, anything. I cannot conclude they exist.

You can apply the "how do you know this is real?" argument to anything. How do YOU know we don't actually live in a purely physical world, and you were injected with a powerful serum five real-time minutes ago and are carrying out your delusional fantasy life? The argument is bollocks. It might be true, but it is absolute bollocks that gets us nowhere. Occam's Razor. Cut out the middleman.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Okay, what the hell are you talking about with this subjective experience thing?

Oh my, are you asking what subjective experience is? A lot of what you've said is kind of beside the point.

You can apply the "how do you know this is real?" argument to anything.

Exactly. There is more to life than material. Physical reality is obviously not the whole story now, is it? Doesn't take much to see that. Knowledge is not physical. Can you admit that?

How do YOU know we don't actually live in a purely physical world, and you were injected with a powerful serum five real-time minutes ago and are carrying out your delusional fantasy life?

Expanding from above; not only knowledge, but fantasy, too, would be impossible. The subjectivity of consciousness underlies all reality, and if you want to prove it, that's your dilemma, although it's never necessary.

Originally Posted by really

Oh my, are you asking what subjective experience is? A lot of what you've said is kind of beside the point.

Then yes, I'm apparently missing the point. Subjective, meaning personal. Taking place inside the mind and modified by individual bias. I fail to see how this is applicable.

Exactly. There is more to life than material. Physical reality is obviously not the whole story now, is it? Doesn't take much to see that. Knowledge is not physical. Can you admit that?

This is my argument: you don't KNOW if there's more to life. Assuming there is without any evidence is ludicrous. I can't admit that knowledge is not physical, because that is not true. All signs indeed point to the fact that it is physical. There is a man who lost a part of his brain and cannot remember anything beyond a few seconds. Every waking moment is literally a brand new experience. There is no knowledge. It is clearly not stored in any sort of spirit. It is physical.

Expanding from above; not only knowledge, but fantasy, too, would be impossible. The subjectivity of consciousness underlies all reality, and if you want to prove it, that's your dilemma, although it's never necessary.

You really are worse than Philosopher. At this point, you're trying to argue using some abstract concept which I quite frankly am not understanding. Somehow, subjectivity proves consciousness is from outside the human body? What? Either I'm missing something, or that is one huge logical fallacy.