Thread: After you die.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Given all the diversity of life on this planet, it all has a "brain" in one form or another. Something that tells it how to assemble or behave. What proteins to make. What its function is. Where food is. That brain takes many forms, but it is always present. So, if the brain is not necessary, why is it in every single form of life?

I'm glad more people recognize you don't need an animal brain to have a 'brain'.

I'd like to see some concrete numbers on your "MANY" scientists who believe this. If you mean a couple thousand, then there are also MANY scientists who think creationism is real, too. Doesn't mean they're right.

I knew you would say something like this. All I can say is these scientists strictly follow the scientific method. Repeat their experiments numerous times. They draw only conclusions supported by that specific experiment. However when examining the totality of these experiments going on, a unified message begins to appear.

Providing the field actually exists.

What kind of proof would you like to know that it exists? The Field is a theory of a unified physics. I don't think we'll find physical evidence of the Field, because the Field isn't physical. Instead if it is real, we should find evidence that the theory works - like quantum entanglement.

That begs several questions, though: could the cell be picking up on signals from other people? Assuming it's even possible, specialized cells tend to perform exactly the same function in most humans. Second question would be if the cells are responding to residual messages...which is to say they received messages that told them to behave that way before being separated from the body, giving the appearance that they are responding to the brain. Just saying...there are a great number of possible explanations out there. Such an unexplained event cannot be explained satisfactorily without the proper evidence.

These are all great questions. That's why experiments are still taking place.

And yes, some of them do believe the cells can pick up this information even if it's coming from another person. The scientists in these experiments take into account how their consciousness could alter the results (directly). They have to come up with ingenious ways to make their experiments as non-biased as possible.

It doesn't always work. But even failed experiments are revealing.

Here's another thought, then: brain waves are able to travel vast amounts of space very quickly. The cells are responding not to some conscious entity, but the brain waves. Not saying it's right. Not saying it's a valid thought. But it is a thought that cannot be discredited any less than the idea that they are responding to a conscious entity.

From my understanding this was more or less the conclusion. The experiments concerned 'thoughts'. But thoughts are the by-products of consciousness, and by studying thoughts we get a deeper insight to what consciousness really is.

'kay, I have another possible one: the brain makes "backup" memories very loosely within parts of the body. The heart is often used to symbolize love, right? Maybe people make backups of emotion inside the heart. Who knows?

You mean, the ganglia? I'm a huge believer in the heart-brain and I take a lot of interest in research concerning the heart-brain. It really is the center of our emotions! But were starting to walk fishy territory between memories and personality.

The race is on to find out of cells hold our memories physically, or "download" them.

But it may be used to the presence of nicotine. Perhaps the cells, used to a different lifestyle, try to influence the body to adjust to that particular lifestyle.

That only begs more questions

If that were true, I'd be able to light up a room by working my way through a sudoku puzzle.

Well....you DO light up the room. All living things emit light. It's just not light you can see with your own eyes. The study of biophotons closely follows the study of biophysics. They now believe that this subtle light plays a vital role in the transfer of information between living things.

The experiments were set up to see if directed intention effects biophotons.

I'm all for research. Bring it on. But be careful of the conclusions you draw.

Great. All I ask is that you understand that these conclusions, the Field and consciousness, is not based on any single research - but an attempt to unify various fields of research. From physics to biology.

I respectfully disagree. I see interesting results, but I don't see any solid cause of those results. Have you considered cultural bias? You were likely raised with the ideas of ghosts, souls, spirits, what have you. So to you, research that gives support to your ideas may make sense. But, what if you had no knowledge of these things? Perhaps you would come up with an equally plausible but totally opposite response. In the end: the results are largely comprised of unexplained phenomena, and are not enough to draw conclusions with.

I disagree that the results are largely compromised of unexplained phenomena. These scientist are professionals. They work with universities and receive funds. Who are we to tell them they don't know how to set up an experiment?

But yes you're right. I grew up Roman Catholic. Which is why this research is even more important to me, because it tosses all those old world religious views out of the bag.

The old world beliefs given to us by Christianity DIVIDE reality. Heaven. Earth. This gave us the idea that religion - the study of heavenly things, and science - the study of earthly things - have no relationship. This idea is so strong, that if we discover a physical cause for a so called spiritual phenomenon - then by default this was proof that the spiritual phenomenon is not spiritual.

Take for example - love. At some point scientists started to tell us that love is a chemical reaction - a physical process. Therefore it could NOT also be a spiritual experience. Because in our divided world, miracles can never be physical, and what is physical could never be spiritual.

This science destroys this old world belief of dividing the world between 'heaven' and 'earth'. Because it gives us a unified view of everything. Now, physical and chemical processes can still be meaningful - even spiritual. Take for example the Global Coherence Initiative.

The GCI is trying to get everyone to spend some time in their day to meditate on love, peace, and compassion. They believe, after through their research on the heart-brain, that there is an authentic scientific and logical reason why we should! They even use technology to help the meditators determine whether or not they have reached peak coherency between the heart and brain.

So now even transcendental meditation can be even be described by in scientific terms. This doesn't make it any less meaningful. Instead the research supports TM.

The fear of this science is the fear that people have to once again adopt an old world view. We don't. This science is asking to adopt a new world view, both spiritually, and physically.

Thanatophobia is the fear of death and something I have. Every night before bed, I lay and think to myself "what if I never wake up?". It's a horrid thought, but maybe's it's because of the people that I would leave behind. It just scares me...

Originally Posted by really

That's not very insightful you know. You really shouldn't hang around this particular sub-forum if that's your outlook, because there's just no compatibility.

By the way I have found happiness. It's not material.

What do you want from me? Let me spell out my philosophy very carefully: if you can't experience it, why should I believe it is there? When people say they're spiritual, my ass begins to twitch. Of all the possibilities, of all the philosophies and beliefs on this planet, how can you be sure that yours is correct? Because a few signs seem to point to your belief system? What about when those signs also point to dozens of other belief systems? What if the signs to date don't really point anywhere conclusive at all? Listen to me: you have your silly belief system, and I have my silly belief system. I require strong, solid evidence before I start drawing conclusions. If that requirement doesn't jive with you, then stfu and stop trolling. I, too, have found happiness...and it is material.

Originally Posted by juroara

I knew you would say something like this. All I can say is these scientists strictly follow the scientific method. Repeat their experiments numerous times. They draw only conclusions supported by that specific experiment. However when examining the totality of these experiments going on, a unified message begins to appear.

I like these scientists.

What kind of proof would you like to know that it exists? The Field is a theory of a unified physics. I don't think we'll find physical evidence of the Field, because the Field isn't physical. Instead if it is real, we should find evidence that the theory works - like quantum entanglement.

Something substantial. Something that makes every other possibility significantly less probable.

From my understanding this was more or less the conclusion. The experiments concerned 'thoughts'. But thoughts are the by-products of consciousness, and by studying thoughts we get a deeper insight to what consciousness really is.

This...is a bit I don't agree with. I maintain that thoughts are the product of the physical processes of the brain (as is consciousness). I do believe we have reached an impasse.

The race is on to find out of cells hold our memories physically, or "download" them.

I look forward to the results.

Well....you DO light up the room. All living things emit light. It's just not light you can see with your own eyes. The study of biophotons closely follows the study of biophysics. They now believe that this subtle light plays a vital role in the transfer of information between living things.

I'm aware of the very faint light human beings emit. I thought that light was a byproduct of the body consuming ATP and generally going about its business.

Great. All I ask is that you understand that these conclusions, the Field and consciousness, is not based on any single research - but an attempt to unify various fields of research. From physics to biology.

Based on research, yes. My question is this: is it enough research?

I disagree that the results are largely compromised of unexplained phenomena. These scientist are professionals. They work with universities and receive funds. Who are we to tell them they don't know how to set up an experiment?

Unexplained in this context means not that the experiment is flawed, but that certain events and phenomena have not been studied enough to really understand them. Things like OBE's, NDE's, astral projection, the cell communication thing...all that. From these we may have loose clues pointing toward a solid conclusion, but exactly what that conclusion is is still fuzzy, and the clues still ambiguous.

The old world beliefs given to us by Christianity DIVIDE reality. Heaven. Earth. This gave us the idea that religion - the study of heavenly things, and science - the study of earthly things - have no relationship. This idea is so strong, that if we discover a physical cause for a so called spiritual phenomenon - then by default this was proof that the spiritual phenomenon is not spiritual.

But if the physical cause can be shown to be valid, that simplifies the problem greatly. The bit that I find interesting is that every mystery throughout history has turned out to be not magic. It has always had a physical cause that can be explained. This has been true across many cultures, religious backgrounds, philosophies, and schools of thought.

Take for example - love. At some point scientists started to tell us that love is a chemical reaction - a physical process. Therefore it could NOT also be a spiritual experience. Because in our divided world, miracles can never be physical, and what is physical could never be spiritual.

What's wrong with love being a chemical reaction? I don't think that diminishes it any.

This science destroys this old world belief of dividing the world between 'heaven' and 'earth'. Because it gives us a unified view of everything. Now, physical and chemical processes can still be meaningful - even spiritual. Take for example the Global Coherence Initiative.

The GCI is trying to get everyone to spend some time in their day to meditate on love, peace, and compassion. They believe, after through their research on the heart-brain, that there is an authentic scientific and logical reason why we should! They even use technology to help the meditators determine whether or not they have reached peak coherency between the heart and brain.

Well, that should be interesting.

So now even transcendental meditation can be even be described by in scientific terms. This doesn't make it any less meaningful. Instead the research supports TM.

Now we're making progress.


Here is some food for thought: if consciousness actually does stem from something other than the human brain, how do you explain anesthetics? When you get hit with them, they basically just stop your brain from performing certain tasks...like registering senses or performing conscious thought. When you go under, you aren't aware of anything. You aren't even aware that you exist. Curious, considering all you're doing is mucking about in the brain, which shouldn't really have an impact on conscious thought. And yet it does.

Originally Posted by Mario92

What do you want from me?

A mature, elaborate and considerate response to the my longer post would be much appreciated, instead of "There's a lot in that post that I don't agree with...".

Let me spell out my philosophy very carefully: if you can't experience it, why should I believe it is there?

I am actually surprised that is your philosophy, because if it is, you have every reason to look into what I'm saying instead of ignoring it. What you've said here is not "concrete evidence" that people can prove to you, yet that is all that you seem to want.

When people say they're spiritual, my ass begins to twitch.

Man, that must really suck. I feel for you.

Originally Posted by really

A mature, elaborate and considerate response to the my longer post would be much appreciated, instead of "There's a lot in that post that I don't agree with...".

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.

I am actually surprised that is your philosophy, because if it is, you have every reason to look into what I'm saying instead of ignoring it. What you've said here is not "concrete evidence" that people can prove to you, yet that is all that you seem to want.

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.

Man, that must really suck. I feel for you.

I must live in some sort of materialistic community or something, then, since it almost never comes up. Ass-twitching aside, though, my life is quite pleasant, and I wouldn't change it for the world.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Here is some food for thought: if consciousness actually does stem from something other than the human brain, how do you explain anesthetics? When you get hit with them, they basically just stop your brain from performing certain tasks...like registering senses or performing conscious thought. When you go under, you aren't aware of anything. You aren't even aware that you exist. Curious, considering all you're doing is mucking about in the brain, which shouldn't really have an impact on conscious thought. And yet it does.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

This lurker is curious; how many of you are post-modernists?

Originally Posted by Mario92

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.

The subjective is what contextualizes and is able to give meaning to the objective, and it can be personal or impersonal. Perhaps the impersonal is a better example because then it excludes personal opinion, which is only relative. However, subjectivity is impersonal because it exists whether your thoughts are true or false, not to mention that fact that it cannot be changed at all.

The content of subjectivity, however, can be misleading. But we are not talking about content; ideas, opinions and thought-forms. Of course, these are personal. Therefore they're irrelevant. It comes down to this: The greatest objective fact is that all reality is subjective, or has subjectivity; witnessing or observing.

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.

Knowledge is not physical, it exists in a completely different paradigm of reality. I do not mean conceptual knowledge or memory recall. I mean knowledge as the ground of being. Back to the point: You only know that you exist. Nobody can take that away from you; just one reason why it is not in the material world. Your own ideas and conceptual "knowledge", on the other hand, could be wrong, correct?

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.

Worse than Philosopher? I don't get it.

Subjectivity, to an extent, can be argued as synonymous with consciousness. Let's consider that it is for the moment. Whether we call it consciousness or subjectivity, it is not the body - the body is an object. Subjectivity is outside the body in the sense that it is beyond it, but not because it is outside or not of current existence. No, it most definitely exists already. You just need to understand the relationship between subject and object.

Originally Posted by spockman

This lurker is curious; how many of you are post-modernists?

This one isn't a post-modernist.

Originally Posted by really

The subjective is what contextualizes and is able to give meaning to the objective, and it can be personal or impersonal. Perhaps the impersonal is a better example because then it excludes personal opinion, which is only relative. However, subjectivity is impersonal because it exists whether your thoughts are true or false, not to mention that fact that it cannot be changed at all.

Very well, but still, how does this prove that consciousness is not from the human body? All this shows is that even in the presence of flawed thoughts, consciousness still exists relatively unchanged. Yes, reality is subjective. But, that does not mean consciousness is not from the human mind.

The content of subjectivity, however, can be misleading. But we are not talking about content; ideas, opinions and thought-forms. Of course, these are personal. Therefore they're irrelevant. It comes down to this: The greatest objective fact is that all reality is subjective, or has subjectivity; witnessing or observing.

Now I am understanding you better. Thank you.

Knowledge is not physical, it exists in a completely different paradigm of reality. I do not mean conceptual knowledge or memory recall. I mean knowledge as the ground of being. Back to the point: You only know that you exist. Nobody can take that away from you; just one reason why it is not in the material world. Your own ideas and conceptual "knowledge", on the other hand, could be wrong, correct?

Well, of course they could be wrong. Again, I could be a delusional penguin in Antarctica for all I know. But, without the evidence to back that up, why should I believe it? This universe I inhabit may not exist, or perhaps it exists entirely differently of what I perceive. All that shows is that my senses are flawed, not that consciousness is from an outside source. Knowledge, as it applies to this universe I think I'm in, is physical. That is what matters: this universe. There might very well be something beyond this universe, but I lack the means to detect it and the reason to believe it. And without those, why should I assume my senses are so very wrong?

Subjectivity, to an extent, can be argued as synonymous with consciousness. Let's consider that it is for the moment. Whether we call it consciousness or subjectivity, it is not the body - the body is an object. Subjectivity is outside the body in the sense that it is beyond it, but not because it is outside or not of current existence. No, it most definitely exists already. You just need to understand the relationship between subject and object.

I disagree with the "beyond the body" thing. Subjective existence is a human-created concept and experience. Without our brains, that concept would not exist, unless perhaps aliens thought of it at some point. It is our brains that give rise to this subjective existence. There still isn't a good reason why consciousness is not the result of the brain's processes.

This lurker is curious; how many of you are post-modernists?

Not I.

By the way Spockman, why do you ask?

Originally Posted by Mario92

Very well, but still, how does this prove that consciousness is not from the human body? All this shows is that even in the presence of flawed thoughts, consciousness still exists relatively unchanged. Yes, reality is subjective. But, that does not mean consciousness is not from the human mind.

It means you could also be wrong in your conclusion; that conclusion is not a self-existent reality but a concept about that reality. Also, the properties of consciousness that I listed earlier (which you seem to have ignored) can't really be emergent properties, yet they are essentially true.

Well, of course they could be wrong. Again, I could be a delusional penguin in Antarctica for all I know.

No you couldn't be. Both of us know that you're not. The point is that there is fundamental knowledge that is always true and not based on your senses, imagination or opinions. If reality is fundamentally subjective and unchanging in that respect, then it cannot be flawed, can it? You must think that I'm arguing this from some kind of arbitrary idea. But my premise is about what already exists.

I disagree with the "beyond the body" thing. Subjective existence is a human-created concept and experience. Without our brains, that concept would not exist, unless perhaps aliens thought of it at some point. It is our brains that give rise to this subjective existence. There still isn't a good reason why consciousness is not the result of the brain's processes.

This is actually more applicable to your own argument. If all concepts are human created and subjective, then why do you refuse to acknowledge that you certainly know of existence, at the least? That, on the other hand, is essentially not a concept. Concepts about existence, such as your own concepts, are formed on top of that existence.

Oh, just because it would change how I view some of your arguments a little bit. Not in that it would make them more or less valid, but I would just know where you were coming from making some of the arguments that you guys have.

Originally Posted by really

It means you could also be wrong in your conclusion; that conclusion is not a self-existent reality but a concept about that reality. Also, the properties of consciousness that I listed earlier (which you seem to have ignored) can't really be emergent properties, yet they are essentially true.

What you have got here is an ad ignorantiam fallacy, which is to say, a fallacy based on the principle of "we don't know, and you can't show it's false." And if I've ignored something, it's more likely that I missed it. Sorry my life is not devoted to debating with you. Now, if consciousness does not display emergent properties (and exactly how it does not, I'd be curious to know), there is a potentially valid explanation for that. When you look at the fossil record, you don't see a very smooth and clear transition all the time, and it is highly unlikely to see living ancestors of modern day species. Humans did not just spontaneously appear...we evolved. That point is often argued by some by the lack of living ape-people. In reality, you don't need living ape people. It's actually very unlikely to see that kind of thing in any species. So, if it seems there's a bit of a gap between chimpanzee consciousness and human consciousness, or whatever the case may be, consider we don't have the complete picture. We don't have the luxury of tracking its development across time. And if that still doesn't satisfy you, we are still dealing with an unexplained event. It is too early to draw conclusions. Could you be right? Sure. But the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

No you couldn't be. Both of us know that you're not. The point is that there is fundamental knowledge that is always true and not based on your senses, imagination or opinions. If reality is fundamentally subjective and unchanging in that respect, then it cannot be flawed, can it? You must think that I'm arguing this from some kind of arbitrary idea. But my premise is about what already exists.

Yes I could be. Show me I couldn't be. Reality is relative. You could see a great nine-story beast loping down the street dressed in a business suit, but to everyone else, you're insane. It's your reality. Similarly, consciousness may very well be flawed, too. I perceive to exist in this universe, but I may not be. I could be being deceived my my senses or whatever fanciful hallucinations my penguin-brain have brought on. If you want to be technical, I don't really know anything. But what I do know is that I'm a tiny, insignificant speck of carbon on a tiny blue rock hurling through space on the outer limb of a massive galaxy. At least, I am in this world I perceive to inhabit. Give me one good reason why I, an imperfect meatbag, should be channeling some great conscious thing in the universe.

This is actually more applicable to your own argument. If all concepts are human created and subjective, then why do you refuse to acknowledge that you certainly know of existence, at the least? That, on the other hand, is essentially not a concept. Concepts about existence, such as your own concepts, are formed on top of that existence.

Okay, so I know of existence. Big whoop. What does that mean? Just because senses may be flawed is not a good reason to attribute consciousness to something beyond the human mind. It may very well be the one thing you absolutely know is true without a doubt, but perhaps that is only because you cannot conceive of being mistaken. You can't imagine consciousness being a mind-created hallucination.

Originally Posted by spockman

Oh, just because it would change how I view some of your arguments a little bit. Not in that it would make them more or less valid, but I would just know where you were coming from making some of the arguments that you guys have.

I come from the realm of atheism...specifically, the flavor of atheism that contends that there is nothing mystical or spiritual going on in the universe...the branch that contends that everything can be subjected to logical thought and analysis and explained rationally.