After you die.

Ever ponder what would happen after you die? I can't think of what it feels like. I can't imagine just not "being" here. It's an amazing subject to study.

Don Piper was a Baptist preacher when he was a victim of a car crash. He was killed instantly upon impact. Paramedics found no signs of life in him. 90 minutes later, he was alive again. Don is author of the book 90 Minutes in Heaven. In the book, he describes heaven.

I am Christian, so I believe his story. He describes a euphoria, and a feeling of eternal happiness. I know this is more religion than science, but what do you all believe happens when someone dies?

I'm new to this forum, so excuse me if I posted this in the wrong section, but I believe this to be Beyond Dreaming...

I am atheist and I believe in nothingness....

It is not the feeling of being in blackness forever but rather what you felt before you were born....or even when you were 1 yr old. You body was physically here but what did you remember, see, feel, smell, etc???

edit: this post is in the wrong place... the off topic section of the forums there is a religion/spirituality forum.

Whatever happens after death is, for the moment, mere speculation. We simply make mental projections from this side of the experience.
I know this is only stating the obvious but i find it important to remember. I still havnt worked out the value of holding opions about theories.

Is There Life After Death? by Anthony Peake ~ http://www.anthonypeake.com/

Very similar ideas to what i already had, its a hard book to read but it has a great idea about what happens when you die and thats what you really want to know right? :)

i have had several OBE's ,and have witnessed the famous tunnel-vision a few times,that one dude had a point when you die you experience the same thing as you are born,you probably start your life with an OBE and die with one(perhaps the tunnel vision is like what you saw as you escaped the womb)
you return to the point from where you came(not physically,but spiritually)
as for death,i don't believe in nothingness ,there is no such thing,the notion of nothing only exists in the mind
when you die your body returns to the ground where it will be part of the natural cycle of life again,the remains of your body become part of the tiny beings that digest it,they are then eaten by larger life like birds,parts of it probably become part of plant-life)as for your soul that is unknown
nothing ever ceases to exist,everything only transforms into something else
in science matter never ceases to exist,the matter that makes up your body is the very same matter that came out of the big bang billions of years ago
with that in mind your soul to must go somewhere,i personally like to think reincarnation is a good possibility(as it makes the most sense)

What if we wake up from a dream when we die?

EDIT: I also think this should go somewhere on ED… Could be the RS section.

I often ponder over this question. Does it not feel like you have been living for an eternity already though? I am only 17 and already I've got billions of different memories that seem to stretch on for ever. And to be honest I bet in 40 years from now, it seems like I've been living for the same, if not a very similar amount of time. And for this reason, among many others, I believe that there is no such thing as 'death' as in the complete end of existence. To me, if I did suddenly die and my conciousness ceased to exist, the universe and everything outside of it would not exist either. Which is surely...impossible? It's because the present is the only true moment.

Oh, and to the Christians, beleif in an afterlife devalues the only life we know. That euphoric rush and (not quite) eternal happiness was the effects of his brain being flooded with DMT, the most powerful hallucogenic in the world. Everyones brains releases it when they die. Interesting huh? The fact that he was religious makes it more likely that he will imagine the Christian kind of heaven whilst he was tripping his balls off.. x

I'm an athiest with a pretty set guess as to what happens... I believe I just won't be anywhere. I won't be seeing blackness or whiteness, but I just won't have the sense of sight at all. I won't be able to feel, as I won't have that or my other senses either. It'll be like my mind is gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by floatingjack

the notion of nothing only exists in the mind

---

Well, then you're one step ahead of me for I cannot grasp the concept of nothingness or ceasing to exist. What is it like, really? Like before the big bang, nothing... Or me just not being here. Everytime I think about it I look at a black emptyness but from an omnipotent view, I cannot get rid of the 'me' in the picture. It's 'me' looking at nothing, but then it's not nothing cos I'm still there... see? :p Even blackness is something... empty space, but empty space is still... you know, unoccupied space... I guess that still is somthing right...?

I believe in an afterlife. Why wouldn't I? It doesn't hinder me in any way, and besides, if I'm wrong, then I just go to sleep forever, tucked away from the problems of the world.

"It's very cold, my friend. Very dark and very cold."

Spoiler for Neverwhere:

~Marquis de Carabas

This is kind of what you are saying, Ladon.

I had an interesting experience one night several years ago when at a friend's apartment. I lay on a bed, awake, and a sudden feeling swept over me that I'd never felt before. It was like a memory, and of piercing solitude that resounded within every hollow of my being (and more that I can't quite pinpoint).. I picked up his house phone and dialed my place, to which I was greeted by my mother. I told her I felt like I was dead. She made clear her worry, but I told her further that I called to let her know that there was no reason to worry, and over death specifically. Death was peaceful. I felt as light as a feather, and calmer than I've ever been. What made the reasoning so clear was that (again) it felt like I was remembering something from long ago. It was familiar. But I haven't felt that before, not that I'm aware (and at least not "this time around," if you get me).

That sensation swayed my worldview somewhat. The end was good. The process of dying may end up being terrible, but afterwards.. Nothing to worry about.

To be a little more specific, there was no form or world I was in (no 'paradise' or 'hell' or 'limbo'). It was like being in friendly blackness, drifting happily along without thoughts or worries. Just peace. Just being.

The only mystery that has ever truly kept my minds attention...

I'm torn so many ways, i hope to be able to experience the entire universe in a profound sense as my conscious is returned from whence it came, though, i also wouldn't mind a good nap.
Reincarnation would be hell to me, having to repeat this existence over and over and over. I wouldn't know it of course but still just the idea is scary to me somehow. I have so many theories, but i know for sure that when i take that step past this, i will do so how i believe Einstein did. I believe he was torn equally in half by a severely intense curiosity of what's next and a burning passion to stay here and see how this existence pans out.

I want to see the human race take into space and escape the destruction of this planet, but i'm so so so curious of what's just around the corner whether it be a rest, or a new existence altogether.

I pretty much stopped wondering what i wanted to happen, and i'll take it 1 step at a time when i actually am dead. More important things to think about then death. But there really is no wrong or right answer, there are only answers based on what we believe will happen, just specculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

I pretty much stopped wondering what i wanted to happen, and i'll take it 1 step at a time when i actually am dead. More important things to think about then death. But there really is no wrong or right answer, there are only answers based on what we believe will happen, just specculation.

---

Unless, of course, there is only one step. And then you can take a big a step as you like down 'Nothing Rd.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

'Nothing Rd.'

---

that's down the street from me O.O

A violet light and a low hum.

What I do think is that it goes into nothingness. The best way I have of imagining this at the moment is the colour of air, stretching on forever.

After a person dies--there is nothing left to think with. It is like asking "what is it like running after we die?" Or what does food taste like, after we die?

Knowledge is the memory of perceptions, with what do we percieive with when the perceptor is no more? When the brain is no more, with what do we remember?

If immortality were a given, then why live at all?

One of the means of testing if someone thinks according to definition is to ask them a question that involves simply an error in definition. See how long it takes them to use the definition to reason by, like the famous "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" etc.,

However, the expectation that death is death has nothing to do with a belief in God, especially should it happen that the word "God" turned out to be a metaphor, say, God is truth. To say that one did not believe in truth sets in motion a dog chasing its own tail.

I don't believe in an eternal soul, but there are two possible things, in my opinion, after we die:

a) nothing, like a deep sleep. But death IS NOT sleep.
b) waking up from a dream- but is that death?

I always used to wonder ... but then I met a dream psychiatrist by chance and really became interested in what he was preaching. So, I decided to meet with him. And I asked him what he thought, and his response stuck. He basically said that in our human bodies, with limited minds, we can't understand what would happen after death, and that is a barrier that we can only get through by letting it go and not even thinking about it. When the time comes, we will know and that is it. In my opinion its a Kierkegaardian stance towards death ... just have faith and understand that the answer is incomprehensible. But, unlike Kierkegaard, when it comes to God, I will always question and meditate; I'm not just going to have faith and follow aimlessly; I think that God is very active in this particular realm of existence.

I also believe in a type of re-incarnation. I've seen things that I believe are from other lives. Visions in plain daylight that just seem so real, places, people, settings that are definitely not from any dreams I've had. I just see them, with my eyes open and everything, and get a chill and feel very very nostalgic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewp

Don Piper was a Baptist preacher when he was a victim of a car crash. He was killed instantly upon impact. Paramedics found no signs of life in him. 90 minutes later, he was alive again. Don is author of the book 90 Minutes in Heaven. In the book, he describes heaven.

I am Christian, so I believe his story. He describes a euphoria, and a feeling of eternal happiness. I know this is more religion than science, but what do you all believe happens when someone dies?

---

What Don and many others have experienced was a massive release of DMT in the brain. Warm feeling, happiness, intense spiritual experiences, all characteristics of DMT. Also simply because hes a christian doesnt mean you should believe him, there have been Christians claiming to be Christ even though they're not.

The body can live without the mind, for example brain dead but modern medicine keeping the body alive. And the mind can exist without the body. Neither are dependent on the others existence in order for them to exist. But the only way the mind can manifest itself in a being is if the brain is functioning properly. And all minds manifested in people are subjective experiences of the same consciousness and what the mind can do all depends on the evolutionary state of the species its trying to manifest itself in. So the mind never stops existing and once the body it was manifesting in is no longer alive the mind returns to the same objective and collective state in the unconscious. I probably could go on but ill stop there.

If you died and found that there was nothing, just pure black, emptiness, then how do you know of it at all? You obviously still exist.

So when somebody talks of death - the end of your life, your expiry, the end of all, they are talking about becoming non-existence. But non-existence isn't real.

The "pure, black emptiness" a lot of us think of as death can't be experienced. It's a metaphor we use to try to understand the cessation of existence.

If you were actually aware of the cold and dark, you would still exist.

I think an afterlife is unlikely.

Is it not intuitive to think that existence by itself is unlikely? Or is all existence likely? Can anyone know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

If you died and found that there was nothing, just pure black, emptiness, then how do you know of it at all? You obviously still exist.

So when somebody talks of death - the end of your life, your expiry, the end of all, they are talking about becoming non-existence. But non-existence isn't real.

---

... Why?

Because existence is just a concept, and automatically just forms the assumption of non-existence. But how can non-existence be true, if truth is something that bears in what exists?

Talked about a lot here:

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=97049

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samael

The "pure, black emptiness" a lot of us think of as death can't be experienced. It's a metaphor we use to try to understand the cessation of existence.

If you were actually aware of the cold and dark, you would still exist.

---

Even if it is a metaphor, it is still a flawed idea of what it's trying to represent. The assumption has no ground to be true.

And yes, being aware of that cold and dark means that you exist and are alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Because existence is just a concept, and automatically just forms the assumption of non-existence. But how can non-existence be true, if truth is sometiing that bears in what exists?

Talked about a lot here:

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=97049



Even if it is a metaphor, it is still a flawed idea of what it's trying to represent. The assumption has no ground to be true.

And yes, being aware of that cold and dark means that you exist and are alive.

---

Oh, no, I totally get that a black expanse would still be existance. I also get the belief that the universe cannot be broken down into nothing. But there is very little reason to believe that our minds are ejected to this black expanse. And if someone ceases to exist, it is not as if the whole universe will, too. So I don't really see where the argument is going. I mean, if I ate all of the bueberry pies in the world- blueberry pie would no longer exist. Sure, it would exist as a concept. But it would be gone. And yes, the particles in the pie would still exist. But as crap. Not as pie.

To be clear, I don't believe in the non-existance, either. But I don't see a reason why I couldn't be wrong and we did cease to exist at death. But I don't worry about it. If we all just die and that is it, I won't be complaining or feeling dissapointed. I just won't.

That's a trick, though. 'Blueberry pie' is a concept, based on the way the object appears, its chemical arrangements, shape, size, how it grew, etc. When you eat it, you say it becomes crap. Yeah, and the nutrients are extracted in digestion, etc. So it has not become non-existent, the ascribed concept or perception of that object has fallen away because it can no longer connect with reality. But of course, if the thing itself were to suddenly non-exist, there would be no use in eating it. The blueberry pies have merely transformed, and one might argue from the earlier point made that not even that occurs, because that transformation is also based on concepts.

So, how this is relevant to death: Death can only be said as the end of something and the beginning of something else. NOT the end of life and the end of existence, because that's impossible. The notion that "I am the body" is a concept inherited in the ego, it is formed out of a collective perception. If you look it long enough, it cannot be entirely true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

That's a trick, though. 'Blueberry pie' is a concept, based on the way the object appears, its chemical arrangements, shape, size, how it grew, etc. When you eat it, you say it becomes crap. Yeah, and the nutrients are extracted in digestion, etc. So it has not become non-existent, the ascribed concept or perception of that object has fallen away because it can no longer connect with reality. But of course, if the thing itself were to suddenly non-exist, there would be no use in eating it. The blueberry pies have merely transformed, and one might argue from the earlier point made that not even that occurs, because that transformation is also based on concepts.

So, how this is relevant to death: Death can only be said as the end of something and the beginning of something else. NOT the end of life and the end of existence, because that's impossible. The notion that "I am the body" is a concept inherited in the ego, it is formed out of a collective perception. If you look it long enough, it cannot be entirely true.

---

I agree that non-existance is possible. I also agree that we are all part of a larger picture. But that doesn't mean there aren't individuals. If that were so, you couldn't simplify down to smaller and smaller objects. There is a distiniction between a rabbit and a centipede. There is a distinction between one human and another. And the blueberry pie? Yeah, it is a concept based on chemical arrangments. What is blueberry pie might seem fairly arbitrary because of that. But there is a definition of what a blueberry pie is. And it no longer meets that definition after it is eaten. So, the 'chemical arrangement' turns into something else after it is eaten. It is no longer pie.

All lifeforms are chemical arrangments. That is what they are.

Okay. Look at it this way. We are all cogs in a clock. When one of the mechanisms breaks down, the mechanism is removed, melted down for scrap metal, and then infused with other metal and gears and stuff. Then the mechanism is put back into the clock. The clock the old mechanism was part of still functions. The material in that old mechanism is re-used. But that particular mechanism is still gone forever. It will never exist as that mechanism again. It is something else entirely. We die and are replaced. I am not saying that we cease to exist. But I am saying it is a possibility.

Personally I don't really worry about it. I'm pretty sure there's no heaven or hell, only nothingness. And with nothingness only nothingness can be percieved... which sounds kind of wierd. So essentially the only time nothingness matters in when there's somethingness... which is now! So If you don't worry about nothingness while there's somethingness then when the somethingness is gone there'll be nothingness to percieve and it won't matter to you. See what I mean? Death only matters when you're alive, so just don't worry about it till your dead... 'cause when your dead you can't be sad or scared.

That's my style anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

I agree that non-existance is possible. I also agree that we are all part of a larger picture. But that doesn't mean there aren't individuals. If that were so, you couldn't simplify down to smaller and smaller objects. There is a distiniction between a rabbit and a centipede. There is a distinction between one human and another. And the blueberry pie? Yeah, it is a concept based on chemical arrangments. What is blueberry pie might seem fairly arbitrary because of that. But there is a definition of what a blueberry pie is. And it no longer meets that definition after it is eaten. So, the 'chemical arrangement' turns into something else after it is eaten. It is no longer pie.

All lifeforms are chemical arrangments. That is what they are.

Okay. Look at it this way. We are all cogs in a clock. When one of the mechanisms breaks down, the mechanism is removed, melted down for scrap metal, and then infused with other metal and gears and stuff. Then the mechanism is put back into the clock. The clock the old mechanism was part of still functions. The material in that old mechanism is re-used. But that particular mechanism is still gone forever. It will never exist as that mechanism again. It is something else entirely. We die and are replaced. I am not saying that we cease to exist. But I am saying it is a possibility.

---

Yes, those are all true as far as the body is concerned, but I think what he's getting at (correct me if Im wrong really) is that our consciousness is something as well, this is assuming that consciousness isnt just some function of the brain though. So, when you die, your consciousness doesnt cease to exist, it will just become something else like physical objects becoming rearranged.

Thats what I got out of it anyways, this subject scares me, mainly because I really dont want to stop experiencing things. If your consciousness really does just cease after your brain dies that means you cant experience anything anymore, or ever again. That scares me the most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

Yes, those are all true as far as the body is concerned, but I think what he's getting at (correct me if Im wrong really) is that our consciousness is something as well, this is assuming that consciousness isnt just some function of the brain though. So, when you die, your consciousness doesnt cease to exist, it will just become something else like physical objects becoming rearranged.

---

That is somewhat true, but consciousness isn't what changes. If needed it moves on to something else when the body dies, but the consciousness is essentially the same. Its quality may shift but for the scope of the discussion, just consider that it is the same. The life changes but you don't, in other words.

Non-existence is not possible for existence itself. It is only possible in concepts. And distinctions, individuals and separate existences also only exist in concepts. Existence altogether is sourced in consciousness. If you think you are the body, you have fear and vulnerability because the body is vulnerable to death. That is a waste of time.

Quote:

---

Thats what I got out of it anyways, this subject scares me, mainly because I really dont want to stop experiencing things. If your consciousness really does just cease after your brain dies that means you cant experience anything anymore, or ever again. That scares me the most.

---

Maybe you should look into afterlife, re-incarnation, OBEs and those kind of things. Experience may change, but that capacity in and of your consciousness cannot be destroyed.

Bottom line is, you become nothing and can not think about being nothing because you are nothing. I think death will be like fainting or knocking yourself out. It'll just happen, and you'll have no sense of time when you are in such a state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Maybe you should look into afterlife, re-incarnation, OBEs and those kind of things. Experience may change, but that capacity in and of your consciousness cannot be destroyed.

---

what do you mean by the capacity in and of my consciousness?

Do note that astral projection does not prove an afterlife.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loaf

Bottom line is, you become nothing and can not think about being nothing because you are nothing. I think death will be like fainting or knocking yourself out. It'll just happen, and you'll have no sense of time when you are in such a state.

---

Really, the bottom line is that this is just an idea. Analyze how can death be possible? Not even getting knocked out is the same as becoming nothing. Nothing that exists can become nothing! It either transforms, or it never changes at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

what do you mean by the capacity in and of my consciousness?

---

The capacity that is intrinsic to consciousness of all experience is essentially the capacity to know, prior to all other knowledge. The root of awareness.

But there is nothing to transform because there is nothing there.
Sure, you could say that there is no such thing as nothing, but being open space or atoms or whatever will probably not include any consciousness or realization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loaf

But there is nothing to transform because there is nothing there.
Sure, you could say that there is no such thing as nothing, but being open space or atoms or whatever will probably not include any consciousness or realization.

---

This seems to be a mixture of levels. First of all, if there's nothing there to begin with, then what's the problem? I.e. No life; no death. And how is death any way like empty space? Does this have anything to do with materialism?

As people, as memories, as consciousness, we become nothing.

You need to back that up somehow, instead of just stating it. How do these things become nothing? How does anything become nothing?

We die, we decompose. Technically we do become something else, but our brains are now gone and we as people are gone too. There is no magical force that can support our consciousness, memories, and everything else.
Think of it like a hard drive. Once a file is deleted, it is removed. It becomes freespace on the disk now, and a new file can be written onto it. But this doesn't mean that it is influenced by the old file, nor holds any of its properties.

I may not be able to prove there is no life after death, but its far more likely and reasonable than saying there is. It is you who needs to prove your beliefs, not the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loaf

I may not be able to prove there is no life after death, but its far more likely and reasonable than saying there is. It is you who needs to prove your beliefs, not the other way around.

---

I concur. If one wishes to suggest that there is an afterlife, one must provide evidence.
The 90 Minutes in Heaven guy was probably experiencing hallucinations due to a lack of oxygen in the brain. Remember, no pulse is not real death, only brain death is real death.
My thought is that, because your brain is no longer functioning, death is like being knocked out, except you don't wake up 3 hours later. I've been KO'd, and it felt like blank. I didn't notice any senses, I couldn't feel time. I couldn't think. I didn't dream. It was the epitome of blankness. I'd be willing to suggest that death is like that, but without waking. It's an end, unless your brain is reactivated, which humans can't do yet.
That is my speculation. In a sense, you're unconscious while dead, so I'm assuming death "feels" like unconsciousness, although saying "feels like unconsciousness" is as ridiculous a statement as saying "looks like invisible." I think it is dishonest to say that there is an afterlife without any solid, concrete evidence in the form of an experiment or an equation or something.

EDIT: Unless you're talking about the body and not the mind, in which case you rot after you die and become a delicious and nutrient-filled meal for bacteria, cannibals, and zombies! Yum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

Thats what I got out of it anyways, this subject scares me, mainly because I really dont want to stop experiencing things. If your consciousness really does just cease after your brain dies that means you cant experience anything anymore, or ever again. That scares me the most.

---

That's the part I think is the most fascinating. When you die, you cease to exist. Every concern, every worry, every bad thought or memory, ceases to exist. You won't go mad with boredom thinking to yourself for all of eternity, or getting bored with some fictional afterlife. You just won't be around for anything. Rest in peace is just that...no turmoil, no conflict, no thinking at all. Sounds nice to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loaf

We die, we decompose. Technically we do become something else, but our brains are now gone and we as people are gone too. There is no magical force that can support our consciousness, memories, and everything else.
Think of it like a hard drive. Once a file is deleted, it is removed. It becomes freespace on the disk now, and a new file can be written onto it. But this doesn't mean that it is influenced by the old file, nor holds any of its properties.

I may not be able to prove there is no life after death, but its far more likely and reasonable than saying there is. It is you who needs to prove your beliefs, not the other way around.

---

Actually, what I'm asking is more simpler than getting you to prove something. I'm asking you to look into the reasoning you're using. I asked you: how does anything become nothing? Even erasing data on a hard-drive doesn't make it non-existent, it transforms it (and does it really become free space?). My point again, to re-emphasis, is that nothing can actually, absolutely, cease to exist. Things can transform, qualities can shift, but anything that can become non-existent is only part of the abstract concept itself and not truthfully. Therefore, death is not the end; non-existence does not allow for transformation, as it negates the nature of form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

That's the part I think is the most fascinating. When you die, you cease to exist. Every concern, every worry, every bad thought or memory, ceases to exist. You won't go mad with boredom thinking to yourself for all of eternity, or getting bored with some fictional afterlife. You just won't be around for anything. Rest in peace is just that...no turmoil, no conflict, no thinking at all. Sounds nice to me.

---

You're almost talking about two different kinds of death now. If you mean absolute death, then it also means that "rest in peace" and "sounds nice" can't apply either. In that sense, death is not possible, and these expressions only really mean something when talking about ego-death, which is not the common topic in "after you die" discussions. When people talk about "after you die", they're talking about when the body falls over and the 'life' seemingly vanishes. I'm sure you don't mean that at death you continue to exist, only in peace. That means it's not the death that most people argue about. Everybody would be killing themselves, if that were true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

You're almost talking about two different kinds of death now. If you mean absolute death, then it also means that "rest in peace" and "sounds nice" can't apply either. In that sense, death is not possible, and these expressions only really mean something when talking about ego-death, which is not the common topic in "after you die" discussions. When people talk about "after you die", they're talking about when the body falls over and the 'life' seemingly vanishes. I'm sure you don't mean that at death you continue to exist, only in peace. That means it's not the death that most people argue about. Everybody would be killing themselves, if that were true.

---

I'm talking about stone cold fang dead. Nothingness. No conscious spark, no thinking, no sense of existing, no senses at all. Just nothingness. Silent nonexistence. Peaceful in the sense that nothing is fucking happening and never will, because you won't be around for anything else ever again. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

My point again, to re-emphasis, is that nothing can actually, absolutely, cease to exist. Things can transform, qualities can shift, but anything that can become non-existent is only part of the abstract concept itself and not truthfully. Therefore, death is not the end; non-existence does not allow for transformation, as it negates the nature of form.

---

What poor logic.
Yes, you are right. Technically, we don't become nothing. But we don't remember how things were in our previous form, so we aren't going to remember how things are now in our next. And I can certainly say that whatever our next form is, it probably won't be much more interesting than nothing anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

I'm talking about stone cold fang dead. Nothingness. No conscious spark, no thinking, no sense of existing, no senses at all. Just nothingness. Silent nonexistence. Peaceful in the sense that nothing is fucking happening and never will, because you won't be around for anything else ever again. :)

---

If you can say its 'peaceful' or 'silent', it's not non-existence. Non-existence = not possible. :D That's the point, and that's why it seemed like you were mixing concepts of death, because there's no death that actually makes one become non-existent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loaf

What poor logic.
Yes, you are right. Technically, we don't become nothing. But we don't remember how things were in our previous form, so we aren't going to remember how things are now in our next. And I can certainly say that whatever our next form is, it probably won't be much more interesting than nothing anyway.

---

Well I guess that's down to your own opinion whether it's interesting or not, and memory doesn't really mean anything either, as these aspects of our personality tend to create perspectives that are reducible to inaccurate assumptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

If you can say its 'peaceful' or 'silent', it's not non-existence. Non-existence = not possible. :D That's the point, and that's why it seemed like you were mixing concepts of death, because there's no death that actually makes one become non-existent.

---

What arbitrary silliness. Silence: lack of sound. Peaceful: not disturbed by strife or turmoil or war. If you have no brain, no consciousness, and basically cease to exist, both of these are true. You won't be thinking so, because you can't, because you're dead. You won't perceive death as being silent or peaceful. You just won't exist. You won't have the means to detect sound, and you won't have the brain to process war or any sort of inner turmoil, which died when you did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

That's the part I think is the most fascinating. When you die, you cease to exist. Every concern, every worry, every bad thought or memory, ceases to exist. You won't go mad with boredom thinking to yourself for all of eternity, or getting bored with some fictional afterlife. You just won't be around for anything. Rest in peace is just that...no turmoil, no conflict, no thinking at all. Sounds nice to me.

---

It is fascinating, but at the same time...like I said, I really dont want to stop experiencing anything. Maybe my opinion will be different in 80 years (if Im lucky) when Im all feeble and broken down and such...but atm in one sense it is fascinating and in the other..sometimes I dont sleep well at night thinking about it >.>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

What arbitrary silliness. Silence: lack of sound. Peaceful: not disturbed by strife or turmoil or war. If you have no brain, no consciousness, and basically cease to exist, both of these are true. You won't be thinking so, because you can't, because you're dead. You won't perceive death as being silent or peaceful. You just won't exist. You won't have the means to detect sound, and you won't have the brain to process war or any sort of inner turmoil, which died when you did.

---

Silence is something that exists whether sound is present or not, just like peace prevails whether there is war or not. The former essentially contextualizes the latter, and both derive from existence. You cannot "play" silence, nor you cannot "create" peace, but both actually exist in either case, regardless of belief or viewpoint.

If non-existence was absolutely true, there'd be nothing to possibly ascribe to what it is. If you ceased to exist, there'd be nobody to perceive anything, nothing to be true, nothing to report and nothing to be possible. If anything, you can only talk about emptiness, but emptiness is an existent reality that includes both consciousness and arguably, to an extent, observing.

My argument is this: consciousness is entirely and totally the product of the brain. When you die, or when your brain stops working, to be more precise, the individual you were dies. Left behind is a pile of decomposing matter. You as a conscious entity cease to exist. Your thoughts, memories, passions, desires, are all wiped away from reality and fed to the worms. Life goes on, but you don't. You won't be around for anything else, ever again. You are no more.

Now, you clearly believe in some form of the afterlife. Would you like to supply the evidence for this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

My argument is this: consciousness is entirely and totally the product of the brain. When you die, or when your brain stops working, to be more precise, the individual you were dies. Left behind is a pile of decomposing matter. You as a conscious entity cease to exist. Your thoughts, memories, passions, desires, are all wiped away from reality and fed to the worms. Life goes on, but you don't. You won't be around for anything else, ever again. You are no more.

---

Thanks for clarifying, this makes it more specific to what you're actually saying.

Quote:

---

Now, you clearly believe in some form of the afterlife. Would you like to supply the evidence for this?

---

I do believe in the possible afterlife, but I know that I can neither prove or disprove it. Do you think that to ask of such proof is logical in itself? Am I expected to die, reincarnate, grow up into specific yet uncontrollable conditions, and then finally resume and conclude the experiment? How do you expect it to be proven? It could be a better idea to see through the illusion of the sequence of time, because then we can see that life, in essence, is not transitory.

There are many implications and intuitive understandings that affirm the afterlife, although this is more of a result of becoming aware of Karma and the intangibility of consciousness. People with advanced human consciousness tend to recall past life-times and Karma, which can not only be arrived at spontaneously as an indirect result of spiritual practice, but also through hypnosis. Much of this is in the domain of spiritual/psychological experience and not in the domain of provability or predictability.

Would you like to supply the evidence for your claim?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

My argument is this: consciousness is entirely and totally the product of the brain. When you die, or when your brain stops working, to be more precise, the individual you were dies. Left behind is a pile of decomposing matter. You as a conscious entity cease to exist. Your thoughts, memories, passions, desires, are all wiped away from reality and fed to the worms. Life goes on, but you don't. You won't be around for anything else, ever again. You are no more.

Now, you clearly believe in some form of the afterlife. Would you like to supply the evidence for this?

---

That seems to be the obvious course of events. I think one of the more spiritual schools of thought is that consciousness in fact is the nature of the universe (something different than matter), and the brain is simply a vessel for it. Either way though, it seems pretty likely that when the brain dies, that which is the individual also dies. So either way "we" won't be around to make any sense of it.

Consciousness is still a mystery, there's no concrete evidence that it is or isn't limited to the brain yet. Hopefully we'll see some further scientific developments on this soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

There are many implications and intuitive understandings that affirm the afterlife, although this is more of a result of becoming aware of Karma and the intangibility of consciousness. People with advanced human consciousness tend to recall past life-times and Karma, which can not only be arrived at spontaneously as an indirect result of spiritual practice, but also through hypnosis. Much of this is in the domain of spiritual/psychological experience and not in the domain of provability or predictability.

Would you like to supply the evidence for your claim?

---

The problem with hypnosis: false memories. And more false memories. The human brain is an amazing thing...if you want to believe something, you can make yourself believe it. This is called delusion. Remembering past lives as a result of hypnosis or even under meditation holds about as much validity as the claim that I consumed three pounds of nails for breakfast today.

Now...you claim that there is validity in spiritual practices, most of which basically exist outside the realm of testability and provability. What you have created is an unfalsifiable claim. Could you be right? Sure. But I highly doubt it. There are simply far too many variables. Any claim that there is something we can't observe or explain accurately creates more variables than necessary. If you can't observe it reliably, why should it have to exist? Why does karma have to exist? It doesn't. It isn't necessary for anything. You can believe it if you like, but I think you're delusional. You're seeing something that isn't there. Now, I do not need to supply evidence for why karma doesn't exist. That's like asking me to supply evidence of why a teakettle is not in the asteroid belt. You are making the positive claim. The burden of proof rests on your shoulders.

Speesh: http://www.mindbodysymposium.com/Hum...s-project.html

All memories are 'false'. Reality is and always will be subjective. Might as well make it the best subjective reality ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

and memory doesn't really mean anything either

---

Oh, I think it does. The afterlife is all about living on. When we die, even if we live on in a different physical form, we have died as people.
If you told me I would die and my memories, personality, and everything about me would die except my physical form would be recycled so technically I would become a frilled lizard, it wouldn't be any better than dying.

We are not living on. Our bodies are (technically) living on. Humans want to know that when their body perishes, there is somewhere for us as people to go. Not the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

The problem with hypnosis: false memories. And more false memories. The human brain is an amazing thing...if you want to believe something, you can make yourself believe it. This is called delusion. Remembering past lives as a result of hypnosis or even under meditation holds about as much validity as the claim that I consumed three pounds of nails for breakfast today.

---

There may be inaccuracies and false memories, but past-life research isn't ordinary hypnosis. The hypnotists don't program you with special, arbitrary memories, but direct you to re-experience unique past happenings in vivid detail. Memory and interpretation seem like a very touchy subject; as if discussing the afterlife wasn't enough.

Also, when I said 'this is more of a result of becoming aware of Karma and the intangibility of consciousness', I did not mean by specific meditation on past-life memories. I meant that it comes about as an indirect consequence of higher spiritual investigation, and not intellectually. Proving or disproving what has actually happened is therefore hard to do in some cases, particularly those that are not controlled and especially those that precede birth.

In addition to this, there's the phenomena of Out-of-Body Experiences. Have you heard of the Monroe Institute? Furthermore have you watched Thomas Campbell's Big Theory of Everything? See this thread for more relevant info on debating consciousness, but especially the first shown post by Xaq (contains Youtube video/series link). It is well worth watching and it is easy to draw links to this topic.

More experiences include those known as Near-death experiences, which are different than OBE's. These experiences reveal that one's consciousness is indeed not a product of the physical body. Again, not provable/disprovable, yet not arbitrary or inconsistent either. All of these experiences no doubt complement each other.

Quote:

---

Now...you claim that there is validity in spiritual practices, most of which basically exist outside the realm of testability and provability.

---

The validity is self-fulfilling and you can even find out for yourself. The proof, as I said, is something that I cannot provide. We're speaking of two different paradigms of confirmation.

A proof here is meaningless because the "afterlife" and "Karma" confirmed in experience and not in linear data. It is like me asking to prove to me that you know that you're alive: Let's say I ask you for proof that you know of life and existence. What can you prove to me? Even the phrase "I think, therefore I am" doesn't cut it because existing precedes thinking. Do note that this is not the same category of experience as whether a person can perceive or conceptualize something, as it does not appear within such normal realms of unreliable human experience.

Quote:

---

What you have created is an unfalsifiable claim. Could you be right? Sure. But I highly doubt it. There are simply far too many variables. Any claim that there is something we can't observe or explain accurately creates more variables than necessary. If you can't observe it reliably, why should it have to exist? Why does karma have to exist? It doesn't. It isn't necessary for anything. You can believe it if you like, but I think you're delusional. You're seeing something that isn't there. Now, I do not need to supply evidence for why karma doesn't exist. That's like asking me to supply evidence of why a teakettle is not in the asteroid belt. You are making the positive claim. The burden of proof rests on your shoulders.

---

There's no burden if you understand what I mean by not requiring proof. All spiritual phenomena are experiential and not concrete or perceivable. The very fact that you exist is a spiritual concern, but you cannot totally explain or prove it to anybody. If somebody says, "Oh you're alive because your heart is beating" - does that fully encompass the knowledge of existence and life, as it is to you? Looking into the afterlife goes in the same direction.

Now I must ask you again. Would you like to supply the evidence for your claim? Or more importantly, why should I believe non-existence is possible? What we're debating here is not so much whether every spirit incarnates again (because that is not set in stone for everyone) but rather, whether your life persists after death in this lifetime. This means, simply that you exist as an entity and have the likelihood to incarnate again or not, and to evolve further beyond this lifetime. Going back to your argument: I would think that if we can see that non-existence is not possible, then the possibility of an after-life, in this sense, is far more promising than you might expect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

All memories are 'false'.

---

Haha good point, although what I think Mario means is that memories are false in the sense that they are completely wrong, having never occurred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loaf

Oh, I think it does. The afterlife is all about living on. When we die, even if we live on in a different physical form, we have died as people.
If you told me I would die and my memories, personality, and everything about me would die except my physical form would be recycled so technically I would become a frilled lizard, it wouldn't be any better than dying.

---

If these facets are just part of the body, then who's to say what's better than dying or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

There may be inaccuracies and false memories, but past-life research isn't ordinary hypnosis. The hypnotists don't program you with special, arbitrary memories, but direct you to re-experience unique past happenings in vivid detail. Memory and interpretation seem like a very touchy subject; as if discussing the afterlife wasn't enough.

---

A psychologist doesn't have to implant arbitrary memories to unwittingly convince people of false ones. If a person goes in with a preconceived notion completely the product of their own mind, and under hypnosis intensify this self-made memory, voila, you have someone convinced of past lives. Repeated sessions lead to greater confidence and more vivid details, all self-developed.

Quote:

---

Also, when I said 'this is more of a result of becoming aware of Karma and the intangibility of consciousness', I did not mean by specific meditation on past-life memories. I meant that it comes about as an indirect consequence of higher spiritual investigation, and not intellectually. Proving or disproving what has actually happened is therefore hard to do in some cases, particularly those that are not controlled and especially those that precede birth.

---

Why is spiritual investigation a good thing? How is it any different from delusion? You can "investigate" all you want, but in the end, you'll end up seeing what you want to see.

Quote:

---

In addition to this, there's the phenomena of Out-of-Body Experiences. Have you heard of the Monroe Institute? Furthermore have you watched Thomas Campbell's Big Theory of Everything? See this thread for more relevant info on debating consciousness, but especially the first shown post by Xaq (contains Youtube video/series link). It is well worth watching and it is easy to draw links to this topic.

---

Out of body experiences...an unexplained phenomena. How is this evidence of the afterlife? Is it supposed to show that consciousness is separate of the body? Because there are other, equally reasonable possibilities with exactly as much evidence to back them up.

Quote:

---

More experiences include those known as Near-death experiences, which are different than OBE's. These experiences reveal that one's consciousness is indeed not a product of the physical body. Again, not provable/disprovable, yet not arbitrary or inconsistent either. All of these experiences no doubt complement each other.

---

NDE's...like the tunnel with the white light at the end? The same one that can be replicated via oxygen deprivation, with the individual nowhere near death? I'd call this more a response of the mind shutting down than the soul leaving the body.

Quote:

---

The validity is self-fulfilling and you can even find out for yourself. The proof, as I said, is something that I cannot provide. We're speaking of two different paradigms of confirmation.

A proof here is meaningless because the "afterlife" and "Karma" confirmed in experience and not in linear data. It is like me asking to prove to me that you know that you're alive: Let's say I ask you for proof that you know of life and existence. What can you prove to me? Even the phrase "I think, therefore I am" doesn't cut it because existing precedes thinking. Do note that this is not the same category of experience as whether a person can perceive or conceptualize something, as it does not appear within such normal realms of unreliable human experience.

---

What you're dealing with is a vague and mysterious world. Here's the thing: people who investigate this stuff on their own obtain different results. Who am I to believe? The guy who says he's been to heaven? The guy who has seen Jesus in an OBE? The man in harmony with the universe? The person who claims to have been a snake in a past life? You can't draw any solid conclusions. You can't say with confidence that karma actually exists. If your personal experiences have led you to believe so, bully for you. I think you're delusional.

Quote:

---

There's no burden if you understand what I mean by not requiring proof. All spiritual phenomena are experiential and not concrete or perceivable. The very fact that you exist is a spiritual concern, but you cannot totally explain or prove it to anybody. If somebody says, "Oh you're alive because your heart is beating" - does that fully encompass the knowledge of existence and life, as it is to you? Looking into the afterlife goes in the same direction.

---

Is it a spiritual concern? Why can't it be a run-of-the-mill physical concern? When I look at myself, I see a series of self-sustaining chemical reactions. Nothing more, nothing less. My thoughts, memories, experiences, all driven by chemical reactions. If you want to find out if I'm alive or not, check to see if all my reactions are performing normally. There are hundreds of ways to test this...heartbeat, EEG, CAT scans, blood pressure, temperature, reflex, and so on. From the results you collect, you can determine within a very reasonable degree of certainty whether or not I'm alive.

Quote:

---

Now I must ask you again. Would you like to supply the evidence for your claim? Or more importantly, why should I believe non-existence is possible? What we're debating here is not so much whether every spirit incarnates again (because that is not set in stone for everyone) but rather, whether your life persists after death in this lifetime. This means, simply that you exist as an entity and have the likelihood to incarnate again or not, and to evolve further beyond this lifetime. Going back to your argument: I would think that if we can see that non-existence is not possible, then the possibility of an after-life, in this sense, is far more promising than you might expect.

---

You're concerning yourself too much with this concept of nonexistence, and are placing variables where they do not belong. Why shouldn't consciousness be the sole product of the human mind? And if it is the sole product of the human mind, of the chemical reactions within the brain, then you don't have to worry about nonexistence. When the reactions stop (in other words, when you physically die or go brain dead), your consciousness basically dies. It stops working. It doesn't go anywhere but the ground. Matter and energy are not being created or destroyed. Your consciousness isn't some precious physical entity that evaporates into nothingness. It is a product of chemical reactions, and when those reactions cease, consciousness ceases, too. Adding spirits or external sources of consciousness only create more problems than necessary. Where do these spirits come from? What happens if there aren't enough to go around? Why are humans so special that we need an entire invisible world of conscious entities to give us consciousness? Why in tens of thousands of years have we been unable to obtain one single solid strand of evidence for the existence of any form of any afterlife?

I don't believe him, he is now probably laughing for everyone who believes him ^^
If it is more religious than scientific, it must be 100% false, i can't doubt about it.
after 2 minutes of no oxygen for the brain, it gets serious damage so he wouldn't even be possible to read, let alone write a book.

As for what happens after when you die, well you are a conscious creation from this universe (there is no other conscious creature or as some people would refer to as a "god" involved in this)
so if you die, you can't be conscious anymore and you simply stop thinking while your body slowly gets "taken back" to the universe :)

of course i am not a professional in this but i don't see any other (logical) possibilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catzisconfus

I don't believe him, he is now probably laughing for everyone who believes him ^^
If it is more religious than scientific, it must be 100% false, i can't doubt about it.
after 2 minutes of no oxygen for the brain, it gets serious damage so he wouldn't even be possible to read, let alone write a book.

---

I said oxygen deprivation, not starvation. You can hold your breath until you pass out and won't be any worse for wear because of it. :roll:

Quote:

---

As for what happens after when you die, well you are a conscious creation from this universe (there is no other conscious creature or as some people would refer to as a "god" involved in this)
so if you die, you can't be conscious anymore and you simply stop thinking while your body slowly gets "taken back" to the universe :)

of course i am not a professional in this but i don't see any other (logical) possibilities.

---

Not quite sure what you're saying here. If it's along the lines of "we're products of the universe, and our consciousness is the result of the physical body, and when the physical body stops working, so does consciousness," then I'm inclined to agree.

i was talking about the OP, not about you ;)

Ah. M'kay.

Pattern. People discuss what they cannot and have not done.
Poor people tell you all they could do with someone else's money.

Perhaps the highest form of expressing one's impotence is . . . . Daydreams.

Ass backwards: attempting to be lucid while asleep while demanding to be asleep while awake.
Confusing fantasy for lucidity. I remember that kind of lucid dreaming.

True lucidity is the exercise of function, not its retirement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

Out of body experiences...an unexplained phenomena. How is this evidence of the afterlife? Is it supposed to show that consciousness is separate of the body? Because there are other, equally reasonable possibilities with exactly as much evidence to back them up.

NDE's...like the tunnel with the white light at the end? The same one that can be replicated via oxygen deprivation, with the individual nowhere near death? I'd call this more a response of the mind shutting down than the soul leaving the body.

---

to be fair, just because you can recreate something one way, doesnt mean there isnt another way for it to happen. Everything else you said I agree with though.

and on obes, I dont believe there is an actually credible theory as to how they all work. But it is one of the more intriguing things about our body to study, besides consciousness itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

A psychologist doesn't have to implant arbitrary memories to unwittingly convince people of false ones. If a person goes in with a preconceived notion completely the product of their own mind, and under hypnosis intensify this self-made memory, voila, you have someone convinced of past lives. Repeated sessions lead to greater confidence and more vivid details, all self-developed.

---

I'm not going to be arguing about whether memories are true or not. They're but one example, and like I said - a touchy subject. Take it with a grain of salt for now.

Quote:

---

Why is spiritual investigation a good thing? How is it any different from delusion? You can "investigate" all you want, but in the end, you'll end up seeing what you want to see.

---

I'm also not going to sway this thread into a lecture about meditation because you're so closed minded about it. Perhaps you just see what you want to see.

Quote:

---

Out of body experiences...an unexplained phenomena. How is this evidence of the afterlife? Is it supposed to show that consciousness is separate of the body? Because there are other, equally reasonable possibilities with exactly as much evidence to back them up.

---

Can you actually answer my questions? I wasn't kidding; maybe what I just brought up can actually address and answer your own questions.

Quote:

---

NDE's...like the tunnel with the white light at the end? The same one that can be replicated via oxygen deprivation, with the individual nowhere near death? I'd call this more a response of the mind shutting down than the soul leaving the body.

---

You're already jumping to conclusions. The point is that the experience confirms that death is impossible.

Quote:

---

What you're dealing with is a vague and mysterious world. Here's the thing: people who investigate this stuff on their own obtain different results.

---

If you look into the real-deal spirituality (E.g. see Advaita or the Bhagavad Gita), actually you'd find that they do not present different "results." Hence when I said "...not provable/disprovable, yet not arbitrary or inconsistent either." Karma and the afterlife are not random, uncommon or arbitrary ideas.

Quote:

---

Is it a spiritual concern? Why can't it be a run-of-the-mill physical concern? When I look at myself, I see a series of self-sustaining chemical reactions. Nothing more, nothing less. My thoughts, memories, experiences, all driven by chemical reactions. If you want to find out if I'm alive or not, check to see if all my reactions are performing normally. There are hundreds of ways to test this...heartbeat, EEG, CAT scans, blood pressure, temperature, reflex, and so on. From the results you collect, you can determine within a very reasonable degree of certainty whether or not I'm alive.

---

In essence you're telling me you'd rather just see it your way. I'm not going to try to change your mind, but just consider for a moment that you're missing the bigger picture. You don't actually know these things at heart. Like everybody else, you only really know of existence - that is not a scientific conclusion now is it? It is experiential. You can't say "Oh no but what grounds do I have to believe in that.." etc.

Quote:

---

You're concerning yourself too much with this concept of nonexistence, and are placing variables where they do not belong. Why shouldn't consciousness be the sole product of the human mind?

---

Because non-existence is an invalid abstract concept, in the end. Therefore, if consciousness was a "sole product" of the human mind, it would have to negate the authority of existence by some act of magic. Reality is not an independent existence in consciousness, and if you agree that consciousness is a "sole product" of the mind, you are mistaking the paradigm difference and giving authority to superficial ideas instead of self-evidence.

Quote:

---

And if it is the sole product of the human mind, of the chemical reactions within the brain, then you don't have to worry about nonexistence. When the reactions stop (in other words, when you physically die or go brain dead), your consciousness basically dies. It stops working. It doesn't go anywhere but the ground. Matter and energy are not being created or destroyed.

---

This is contradictory because if matter and energy are conserved, then so is consciousness. If you say we die and cease to exist, then from whence did we come? Did we become alive out of non-existence? I highly doubt that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

I'm not going to be arguing about whether memories are true or not. They're but one example, and like I said - a touchy subject. Take it with a grain of salt for now.

I'm also not going to sway this thread into a lecture about meditation because you're so closed minded about it. Perhaps you just see what you want to see.

---

Call me close minded all you like, but until I see some valid evidence, I'm not going to sway.

Quote:

---

You're already jumping to conclusions. The point is that the experience confirms that death is impossible.

---

It confirms nothing at all. It shows that people with NDE's have similar experiences. It does not give any accurate sense of what the source of these similar experiences are. It might as well be a physical process for all we know.

Quote:

---

If you look into the real-deal spirituality (E.g. see Advaita or the Bhagavad Gita), actually you'd find that they do not present different "results." Hence when I said "...not provable/disprovable, yet not arbitrary or inconsistent either." Karma and the afterlife are not random, uncommon or arbitrary ideas.

---

They're ideas founded on thousands of years of religion. That doesn't mean they're real. As I've said...I require some form of evidence, especially in regards to the larger and more mysterious questions of the universe. You might call that close-minded, but as long as your arguments can be countered or negated with equally plausible ones, you haven't shown me anything. I'm not saying you absolutely have to be dead wrong, but the odds of you being correct are more implausible than the obvious solution that we as conscious beings die at the end of our lives. You're factoring in hidden and undetectable forces of dubious origin, outside entities as the source of consciousness that we cannot perceive. When people say they have confidence in one of these things, my ass begins to twitch. Now, you could be right. But I really don't think so.

Quote:

---

In essence you're telling me you'd rather just see it your way. I'm not going to try to change your mind, but just consider for a moment that you're missing the bigger picture. You don't actually know these things at heart. Like everybody else, you only really know of existence - that is not a scientific conclusion now is it? It is experiential. You can't say "Oh no but what grounds do I have to believe in that.." etc.

---

Yes, I only know of existence. Of course, I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in anything beyond existence. Now, I could be wrong. I could be a delusional, sophisticated penguin on some frozen outcropping of Antarctica for all I know. But without any evidence to back that claim up, why should I even consider it? Don't you find it funny that, in the thousands of years modern humans have been walking the face of the earth for, we have yet to find one single shred of evidence that supports unwaiveringly the notion of any sort of afterlife?

Quote:

---

Because non-existence is an invalid abstract concept, in the end. Therefore, if consciousness was a "sole product" of the human mind, it would have to negate the authority of existence by some act of magic. Reality is not an independent existence in consciousness, and if you agree that consciousness is a "sole product" of the mind, you are mistaking the paradigm difference and giving authority to superficial ideas instead of self-evidence.

---

We're not talking about non-existence. I'm talking about the chemical reactions sustaining conscious thought ceasing to take place. All the components are still there...until recycled back into the earth, that is, it's just that no motion between particles is taking place. What causes that motion to stop varies from person to person, but generally aging or catastrophic failure causes some physical function necessary for life to shut down, and that chain-reacts itself straight to the brain. Faced without oxygen, blood, or nutrients, it rapidly parishes, unable to sustain the reactions. The reactions cease, and the consciousness that was the product of those reactions also ceases. Consciousness as I see it is not some unique form of energy or particulate matter. It is the byproduct of ions jumping the synapse. Now, you beg to differ that the brain is capable of being solely responsible for conscious thought. That's fine. I see it otherwise. But my conclusions are not illogical.

Quote:

---

This is contradictory because if matter and energy are conserved, then so is consciousness. If you say we die and cease to exist, then from whence did we come? Did we become alive out of non-existence? I highly doubt that.

---

Consciousness is neither matter nor energy. Ergo, it needs not be conserved. Tell me...have you heard of something called evolution? Because that's what I think happened. You'll notice that creatures with consciousness or some semblance of consciousness seem to be higher up the food chain. Why isn't consciousness a selected trait? You treat consciousness as if it is absolutely there or it is absolutely not. In reality, it is a fuzzy gradient. Chimpanzees display at least rudimentary conscious thought. Given that it seems more like a gradient than just something erupting out of what was nothing, evolution as the ultimate cause of consciousness is not all that unlikely. Something wasn't just spontaneously created...and at the same time, that something has not always needed to exist.

I'm cutting out the middle man. Why does some outside entity need to be the source of consciousness? What created that entity? What created the entity that created the entity? Unless you're suggesting that once humans started being born, conscious entities started springing up, seemingly out of nothingness. The idea that our brains are the sole source of consciousness has the fewest variables and is actually verifiable. All you do with the outside source argument is raise even more questions without any definite answer. Again, could you be right? Sure. But I highly doubt it.

I couldn't be bothered reading through all of this, but I just saw mention of OBEs again. Yes, out of body experiences DO NOT prove an afterlife.

Quote:

---

let's suposse for a minute that you can somehow through meditation or whatnot, induce an astral projection or OBE(out of body experience), it does not prove life after death. I would like it to be but what if it's just you being able to project your "energy" outside of your body while you are alive because after all, your brain is much like an electrical appliance or a radio that sends out waves, but once the batteries are gone, then..thats it. so in a sense, yes you can move "yourself" out of your body and go places and prove that you are indeed not confined to your flesh, but it's not a soul so to speak just you projecting your brain waves outside of the confines of your brain. and once your life is gone, then that ability is gone as well.

---

I also think its worth saying that you'll always have a hard time debating life after death if you support it because there is just no decent evidence. I've noticed a lot of debate in this topic uses the logic 'that just because you can't disprove something, you can't be sure it doesn't exist'. Sure, thats true. But you can take any topic in philosophy and use that logic. It doesn't prove anything, nor make your argument stronger.
Life after death all relies on belief. And you can't really argue with that.

So you've seemed to ignore that link/reference again, Mario? Nothing to say about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

Call me close minded all you like, but until I see some valid evidence, I'm not going to sway.

---

You believe something without seeing what you call "valid evidence", right here:

Quote:

---

Yes, I only know of existence. Of course, I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in anything beyond existence. Now, I could be wrong.

---

You're can't be wrong here, that's the point. Proof is extraneous and impossible; you don't need it. This is the difference in paradigm. People who are naive are the one's who want you to prove it.

Quote:

---

It confirms nothing at all. It shows that people with NDE's have similar experiences. It does not give any accurate sense of what the source of these similar experiences are. It might as well be a physical process for all we know.

---

Unless you have had a NDE, you can't say it doesn't confirm anything, because that's the point. Skepticism works better with an open mind. At least most believers can see consistency, reliability and concordance with spiritual philosophy even while they haven't experienced what would confirm it anyway.

Quote:

---

They're ideas founded on thousands of years of religion. That doesn't mean they're real.

---

It means it's reliable and consistent, and finally, valid. I can clearly tell that you're biased now. On the other hand I can see that I acknowledge science but also that it is not actually against religion or visa versa.

Quote:

---

We're not talking about non-existence. I'm talking about the chemical reactions sustaining conscious thought ceasing to take place. [...] But my conclusions are not illogical.

---

I am talking about it because it is an important point, and it is not illogical. Discussing chemical reactions, on the other hand, may be logical, but it is extraneous. Chemical reactions don't cause consciousness, but they occur out of its source. Like I said, reality is not an independent existence in consciousness. This is obvious in what has been demonstrated in quantum physics.

Quote:

---

Consciousness is neither matter nor energy. Ergo, it needs not be conserved.

---

Consciousness is part of matter/energy, ergo it is conserved automatically because it is not subject or limited to matter/energy.

Notice that we have discussed a lot of this already, I.e. in the How are we not a computer? thread. I'm not so keen to be repeating myself again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loaf

I also think its worth saying that you'll always have a hard time debating life after death if you support it because there is just no decent evidence. I've noticed a lot of debate in this topic uses the logic 'that just because you can't disprove something, you can't be sure it doesn't exist'. Sure, thats true. But you can take any topic in philosophy and use that logic. It doesn't prove anything, nor make your argument stronger.

---

That's obvious to most people who understand the scientific method. You can apply the so called 'logic' to any subjective matter and end up with the same result. Because that's the nature of subjective premises: not provable. The problem here is that all reality is subjective, yet some of you here think that you need to prove what innate to one's reality and existing. However, if you take notice, what I'm saying distinguishes the concern a little further than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

So you've seemed to ignore that link/reference again, Mario? Nothing to say about it?

---

What link where?

Quote:

---

You believe something without seeing what you call "valid evidence", right here:

You're can't be wrong here, that's the point. Proof is extraneous and impossible; you don't need it. This is the difference in paradigm. People who are naive are the one's who want you to prove it.

---

I have five senses I use to collect information about the world around me. They could be flawed, surely. But I have no reason to believe they are. I have no evidence at all for any other sort of existence, so why should I believe anything other than what my senses are telling me?

Quote:

---

Unless you have had a NDE, you can't say it doesn't confirm anything, because that's the point. Skepticism works better with an open mind. At least most believers can see consistency, reliability and concordance with spiritual philosophy even while they haven't experienced what would confirm it anyway.

---

I see consistency. I don't see why it has to be tied to spiritual philosophy. Remind me again of exactly why all NDE's can't be the product of a body and mind shutting down.

Quote:

---

It means it's reliable and consistent, and finally, valid. I can clearly tell that you're biased now. On the other hand I can see that I acknowledge science but also that it is not actually against religion or visa versa.

---

Karma: from Indian religions, namely Hindu. Heaven and hell: See Judeo-Christianity. Founded in religion.

Quote:

---

I am talking about it because it is an important point, and it is not illogical. Discussing chemical reactions, on the other hand, may be logical, but it is extraneous. Chemical reactions don't cause consciousness, but they occur out of its source. Like I said, reality is not an independent existence in consciousness. This is obvious in what has been demonstrated in quantum physics.

---

This is where we have our impasse. You assert that consciousness is from without the body. I assert it is from entirely within. The reason your solution is less likely is because it factors in unnecessary variables. Under the principle of Occam's Razor, the simplest solution is likely correct. As a man of science, while I maintain that you might be right, your solution invariably leads to more variables, and so is less plausible. We have very solid evidence of evolution. We can observe a gradient of consciousness. We have no observations for any sort of outside conscious entity. If you can show me that there is an entity outside the body responsible for consciousness, I will change my mind. I will spin on a fucking dime. But until you have so much as a single shred of evidence, I cannot hold your solution to be valid.

Quote:

---

Consciousness is part of matter/energy, ergo it is conserved automatically because it is not subject or limited to matter/energy.

---

Again, this is where we reach an impasse. You say consciousness is part of matter/energy. How? Can we weigh consciousness? Can we feel the force of consciousness, or convert it into any other form of energy? Consciousness is a thought process. And even if it is somehow a part of energy or matter, you still can't show that it doesn't degrade with the body upon death, or is instantly converted to some other form of energy that destroys that consciousness.

Quote:

---

Notice that we have discussed a lot of this already, I.e. in the How are we not a computer? thread. I'm not so keen to be repeating myself again.

---

Nor am I, but your logic is astonishingly flawed.

Quote:

---

That's obvious to most people who understand the scientific method. You can apply the so called 'logic' to any subjective matter and end up with the same result. Because that's the nature of subjective premises: not provable. The problem here is that all reality is subjective, yet some of you here think that you need to prove what innate to one's reality and existing. However, if you take notice, what I'm saying distinguishes the concern a little further than that.

---

Here's a general rule of thumb: evidence or gtfo. While a proof of the afterlife would be nice, we'd accept a piece of valid evidence just as well. You are correct...it is impossible to know if this reality actually exists or not. HOWEVER, I have evidence that it does. I have five senses and a working brain (or a brain that works well enough as far as I'm concerned) that says I'm living in this reality. And I can be reasonably sure that reality is real (or real enough) by the principle of Occam's Razor. Fewer variables = more plausibility. I could be a delusional penguin. I could be in an insane asylum. But those are extra variables, and by definition, less likely. Still possible, but not very likely. If you wanted to observe someone and see if they're alive, you could measure that. You could observe the individual and collect evidence.

In short: while this reality may be false, it is stable enough and real enough that it might as well be reality. I'm seeing no escape from it, and I've become well-adapted to this reality. What I observe is what is relevant. Unless you can observe the afterlife with a reasonable degree of certainty, it is not relevant. It is not a testable, viable claim. It may be true, but I have no reason to believe so.

Now, I repeat: where is your evidence? NDE's and OBE's are not good evidence. Too little is actually known about them to draw any conclusions at all. As Loaf pointed out, there are other equally (if not more) plausible explanations for these phenomena. Here's the thing: unless you can produce evidence, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to take you seriously. Just because the afterlife falls into the spiritual realm, it does not excuse you from the burden of proof. There is nothing "more" to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

What link where?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

In addition to this, there's the phenomena of Out-of-Body Experiences. Have you heard of the Monroe Institute? Furthermore have you watched Thomas Campbell's Big Theory of Everything? See this thread for more relevant info on debating consciousness, but especially the first shown post by Xaq (contains Youtube video/series link). It is well worth watching and it is easy to draw links to this topic.

---

Quote:

---

I have five senses I use to collect information about the world around me. They could be flawed, surely. But I have no reason to believe they are. I have no evidence at all for any other sort of existence, so why should I believe anything other than what my senses are telling me?

---

You already got my point before, but now you're just talking about extraneous facts. You said "Yes, I only know of existence. Of course, I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in anything beyond existence." You know of your senses, regardless of whether they're correct or not, and yet this is purely subjective and not provable, detectable or a product of material. Knowing of existence is not interpreting existence, it goes beyond appearances and the body/mind, therefore it is a spiritual concern. You don't need to look for consciousness because all of this experiential phenomena is happening within it.

Quote:

---

I see consistency. I don't see why it has to be tied to spiritual philosophy. Remind me again of exactly why all NDE's can't be the product of a body and mind shutting down.

---

As I understand them, Near-Death experiences reveal a presence or an awareness that one's consciousness (or life) is not subject to time or space, hence consciousness is known as indestructible. It is impossible for something experiential such as this, to be a product of material and chemicals, since experience is obviously beyond all the describable and restricted properties that material entails; two completely different qualities and categorize. The nature of experience and revelation is obviously a spiritual matter and not a matter of mathematics or chemistry.

Quote:

---

Karma: from Indian religions, namely Hindu. Heaven and hell: See Judeo-Christianity. Founded in religion.

---

Why are you telling me this? Heaven and hell is obviously part of Karma.

Spoiler for evidence or gtfo.:

Quote:

---

This is where we have our impasse. You assert that consciousness is from without the body. I assert it is from entirely within. The reason your solution is less likely is because it factors in unnecessary variables. Under the principle of Occam's Razor, the simplest solution is likely correct. As a man of science, while I maintain that you might be right, your solution invariably leads to more variables, and so is less plausible. We have very solid evidence of evolution. We can observe a gradient of consciousness. We have no observations for any sort of outside conscious entity. If you can show me that there is an entity outside the body responsible for consciousness, I will change my mind. I will spin on a fucking dime. But until you have so much as a single shred of evidence, I cannot hold your solution to be valid.

[...]

Again, this is where we reach an impasse. You say consciousness is part of matter/energy. How? Can we weigh consciousness? Can we feel the force of consciousness, or convert it into any other form of energy? Consciousness is a thought process. And even if it is somehow a part of energy or matter, you still can't show that it doesn't degrade with the body upon death, or is instantly converted to some other form of energy that destroys that consciousness.

[...]

Here's a general rule of thumb: evidence or gtfo. While a proof of the afterlife would be nice, we'd accept a piece of valid evidence just as well. You are correct...it is impossible to know if this reality actually exists or not. HOWEVER, I have evidence that it does. I have five senses and a working brain (or a brain that works well enough as far as I'm concerned) that says I'm living in this reality. And I can be reasonably sure that reality is real (or real enough) by the principle of Occam's Razor. Fewer variables = more plausibility. I could be a delusional penguin. I could be in an insane asylum. But those are extra variables, and by definition, less likely. Still possible, but not very likely. If you wanted to observe someone and see if they're alive, you could measure that. You could observe the individual and collect evidence.

In short: while this reality may be false, it is stable enough and real enough that it might as well be reality. I'm seeing no escape from it, and I've become well-adapted to this reality. What I observe is what is relevant. Unless you can observe the afterlife with a reasonable degree of certainty, it is not relevant. It is not a testable, viable claim. It may be true, but I have no reason to believe so.

Now, I repeat: where is your evidence? NDE's and OBE's are not good evidence. Too little is actually known about them to draw any conclusions at all. As Loaf pointed out, there are other equally (if not more) plausible explanations for these phenomena. Here's the thing: unless you can produce evidence, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to take you seriously. Just because the afterlife falls into the spiritual realm, it does not excuse you from the burden of proof. There is nothing "more" to it.

---

Where did I say consciousness is an outside entity?

Speaking of variables, my "solution" seems to be the most plausible. Because after all, if you see that you can only know of life, consequently there is no possibility of death. There are no big variables here; life is a constant. Perhaps the only variable that is relevant is the gradient or level of consciousness in the given individual.

Also, see the above link for "shreds" of evidence, it may be relevant. Doesn't quantum physics count?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

You already got my point before, but now you're just talking about extraneous facts. You said "Yes, I only know of existence. Of course, I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in anything beyond existence." You know of your senses, regardless of whether they're correct or not, and yet this is purely subjective and not provable, detectable or a product of material. Knowing of existence is not interpreting existence, it goes beyond appearances and the body/mind, therefore it is a spiritual concern. You don't need to look for consciousness because all of this experiential phenomena is happening within it.

---

Maybe I'm just being dense, but I still don't know what you're getting at. I use senses to collect information about the world I perceive to inhabit. Those are the only tools at my disposal. No amount of spiritual enlightenment will change that. So it may be subjective. Maybe you don't exist. That's fine. My senses tell me otherwise. And seeing how they're the only means I have to collect information around me, why should I distrust them? Certainly they may be flawed, but I don't exactly have an alternative. There are beings in my little world that have senses the same as mine, and can help me confirm that in the world I perceive to inhabit, when I'm looking at a building, it's actually there. It might not be, but I don't have a reason to believe otherwise.

Quote:

---

As I understand them, Near-Death experiences reveal a presence or an awareness that one's consciousness (or life) is not subject to time or space, hence consciousness is known as indestructible. It is impossible for something experiential such as this, to be a product of material and chemicals, since experience is obviously beyond all the describable and restricted properties that material entails; two completely different qualities and categorize. The nature of experience and revelation is obviously a spiritual matter and not a matter of mathematics or chemistry.

---

Look, I got the link, and I can tell you I'm not going to sit through an hour and a half of youtube videos. So, if you'd like a level playing field to argue on, perhaps you could help elaborate on how NDE's prove consciousness is not subject to time nor space. And what do you mean here by "experience?" I experience the wind. I experience tastes, sensations, thoughts, feelings. In other words, I experience reality as interpreted by the brain. This is very much a matter of chemistry and mathematics, as you put it. Much research is taking place to try and understand conscious thought and its source. THAT is how you observe the world and draw conclusions about it. Not by observing some little-known phenomenon and trying to explain it in some way that makes sense to you.

Quote:

---

Where did I say consciousness is an outside entity?

---

When you said it's eternal, and cannot be created nor destroyed. Ergo, if humans are not gifted with naturally conscious thought, there is an outside entity that somehow bestows it upon us. You can call that a soul or some imperceptible universal force or whatever you want. The bottom line is: unless humans can have conscious thought all by their lonesome, there is something outside the human body and the human mind that gives us consciousness.

Quote:

---

Speaking of variables, my "solution" seems to be the most plausible. Because after all, if you see that you can only know of life, consequently there is no possibility of death. There are no big variables here; life is a constant. Perhaps the only variable that is relevant is the gradient or level of consciousness in the given individual.

---

Your body stops working. You're dead. That variable is still there. And now you still have the outside entity problem. The solution with the fewest variables is the one we already know happens: evolution. If we accept that conscious thought has been selected through evolution, as evidence suggests, then there is no outside entity. There is no eternal conscious thing that has been waiting around specifically for humans to evolve. Consciousness becomes a regular bodily process. When the body stops working, so does it. Kind of like pulling the plug on a computer. The computer is still physically there, but there's no power to run it. The power didn't just vanish into thin air, either. It stopped flowing to the computer.

Quote:

---

Also, see the above link for "shreds" of evidence, it may be relevant. Doesn't quantum physics count?

---

Quantum physics! Another relatively new frontier. Again, you're taking relatively vague or ill-known concepts and trying to make consciousness fit within them. Unexplained events are exactly that: unexplained. There are things in this world we do not know. Mankind has been deceived before. People thought the world was flat. It appeared flat enough. But as our understanding grew, we found it was round. And also not in the center of the universe.

I see a building - therefore I must trust my senses that it's there - what about dreams? What do dreams have to tell us about death? What do dreams tell us about experience and consciousness? What is the true origin of experiencing a reality? The body? The brain? Consciousness?

Exploratory science starts with questions. You can't ask questions if you don't think outside the box. What if our understanding of consciousness and experiencing is wrong, or at the least incomplete?

Entertainment gives us as a strange view of ghosts and the after life. For one, for some strange unknown reason ghosts CAN NOT FEEL. They can't feel pleasure, and they can't feel pain. They can't taste food, they can't smell! The simple reasoning behind this ideology was - ghosts don't have a body - DUH.

But that very same senseless ghost could talk, hear and see, not to mention THINK. All traits of which according to science, require a body.

Either way, its silly of entertainment to strip a ghost down of some senses and not others. Why can a ghost still see if it doesn't have physical eyes?

On the other hand in dreams, we have the capacity to interact with an environment that has no physical existence, but still offers an experience so real, it sometimes fools into thinking that it is physical. In dreams we can smell, taste, touch, hear, see, all independently of our actual physical eyes, ears, skin, mouth, and nose.

Either a body is completely irrelevant in experiencing a form of reality, or in dreams we have a dream body with it's own built in dream senses to sense the dream world - which then sends those dream signals to the brain. The latter is the belief of an astral body.

If we assume that the mainstream scientific understanding of dreams is correct, then this leaves body (minus the brain) out of the equation as the origin of experiencing (a reality). Were left with two sources of experiencing a reality - the brain and consciousness.

My conclusion is, experiencing a reality is an intrinsic property of consciousness, and ONLY consciousness. Your conscious experience of any reality is always independnet of the processes happening in your brain.

Take for example the very chair you're sitting on. It doesn't matter if your butt always sends signals to the brain, it doesn't matter if the brain always receives and process these signals. This alone is not enough to gaurantee that you experience the experience of an ass growing number by the second!

Because experience is something only consciousness can do. And not necessarily those brain signals of a butt growing numb. Rather, the consciousness seems to dig into the information held in the brain to pull out what it wants to experience. You can experience your ass getting numb if you want, or you can just tune it out.

Knowing that not all brain processes are experienced by consciousness, can we then ask the question if a brain is necessary to experience a reality? Given the diversity of life on planet earth, I think the answer is no.

The next question is, can our human consciousness experience a reality without the brain? If so, what is the origin of consciousness?

Mainstream science says that consciousness originates from the brain. But not all scientists agree. MANY scientists today believe that consciousness is "downloaded" by the brain. In a similar way that your computer (physical) is downloading this website (digital) from the internet (a web of energy holding the digital information). Consciousness is believed to originate, not in the brain, but in a "web of energy".

It's this "web of energy" that exists every where that these scientists are so interested in. It's been called many things, but it's most well known title is the Field. This Field of energy holds the "information" of consciousnesses, like the internet holds the information of a website.

These scientists are not satisfied with simply believing, they support their work-in-progress ideas with genuine research. It is a work in progress. But so far, what research is out there is promising.

Some of this research is even at the cellular level. I'm too lazy to drag the name of the scientists, but if you're interested I'll get off my lazy ass and find it for you :cheeky:. MY MEMORY IS A BIT FUZZY. But from what I remember this research suggests that our cells can still receive information from our brain, even if the cell has been separated from the rest of body and is thousands of miles away! This research suggests that cells separated from the body, can react as if they are still a part of the body.

Not only do the cells react/receive information as if they are still a part of the body, but they seem to be able to do so INSTANTLY. Again, instantly even if its thousands of miles away.

At the same time, for years people who have received donated organs seem to be able to download information (thoughts, emotions, likes, dislikes, personality traits) of the original owner of the organs! Scientists still don't have an actual answer for this phenomenon.

While some believe the cells harbors the memory information physically, others believe that this is silly.A single cell doesn't have an addiction to smoking.

Other scientists believe that the reason cells separated from the body can continue to receive information is because: Our thoughts are composed of light, and carries all the properties of light, including it's speed and far extending reach.

These scientists don't stop. They just ask more questions. This research is happening with biologists. They believe that every cell in our body has a receptor that is unique to us, only capable of receiving the information carried in our thoughts. Others have set up ingenious experiments to test if thoughts are composed of light.

From using sensitive equipment that can pick up the light of galaxies in the dark void of our night sky, and turning it on human beings, to seeing if intense focus and intention effect light loving creatures like algae.

Every day these experiments give strength to the idea that consciousness is so much more than the processes of a brain. But these experiments also radically alter our entire world view. Everything. Including how we should interact with other beings.









Now some people believe that consciousness only directly influences subatomic particles. That the double slit and the observer effect only influences the tiniest parts of reality.

BUT.....

The double slit experiment was repeated successfully with one of the largest natural molecules on earth. This large molecule, the size of a city compared to a subatomic particle, behaved as a potential, and flew through both slits at the same moment in time. From molecules we get chemistry, and chemistry allows for biological processes! Consciousness collapses the potential of the subatomic into a physical reality, does it also collapse the molecule that exists in a state of potential?

With every new discovery, there are only more questions. Were not done here. But I think that there is enough insane research out there to hang up the materialistic world view of consciousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

I see a building - therefore I must trust my senses that it's there - what about dreams? What do dreams have to tell us about death? What do dreams tell us about experience and consciousness? What is the true origin of experiencing a reality? The body? The brain? Consciousness?

---

I didn't say that. I said my senses could very well be flawed. But I have no way of knowing if they are or not. In dreams, I at least have tools at my disposal, like reality checks, to test the validity of reality. Kinda hard to do in real life if you don't have any idea what to look for, or if there's even anything to look for. I personally label the brain as the source of experience. Without it to interpret messages we receive from our senses, we can't experience anything but our own thoughts...though it would be interesting to see if we even have thoughts if we aren't ever exposed to any sort of stimulus.

Quote:

---

Exploratory science starts with questions. You can't ask questions if you don't think outside the box. What if our understanding of consciousness and experiencing is wrong, or at the least incomplete?

---

Likely it is. And I want to find out once and for all exactly what is going on as much as the next person. But without that essential knowledge, it is only speculation from both sides. Really's solution contains more variables, and by the principle of Occam's Razor, is less plausible. It could still happen, but if I had to bet on it, I'd say that his solution is incorrect.

Quote:

---

On the other hand in dreams, we have the capacity to interact with an environment that has no physical existence, but still offers an experience so real, it sometimes fools into thinking that it is physical. In dreams we can smell, taste, touch, hear, see, all independently of our actual physical eyes, ears, skin, mouth, and nose.

---

Capitalizing on past memories, all stored within the brain.

Quote:

---

Either a body is completely irrelevant in experiencing a form of reality, or in dreams we have a dream body with it's own built in dream senses to sense the dream world - which then sends those dream signals to the brain. The latter is the belief of an astral body.

---

Or the brain uses past memories and experiences to create its own signals.

Quote:

---

My conclusion is, experiencing a reality is an intrinsic property of consciousness, and ONLY consciousness. Your conscious experience of any reality is always independnet of the processes happening in your brain.

---

My conclusion is this: the brain is the source of consciousness. Its processes are the ultimate source of consciousness. Not only is it vital for interpreting and experiencing whatever perceived reality we're all in, but it is also tied directly to conscious thought.

Quote:

---

Take for example the very chair you're sitting on. It doesn't matter if your butt always sends signals to the brain, it doesn't matter if the brain always receives and process these signals. This alone is not enough to gaurantee that you experience the experience of an ass growing number by the second!

---

Of course I can't really be sure if my ass is really on a chair or not. But if my brain is mistaken, so is my conscious thought. They both work to convince me that this reality is real. I can feel my ass on the chair, as interpreted by the brain. It might be fake. It might be false. But my RC's are working right now and I haven't a clue as to what to look for on any other sort of plane of existence. For all intents and purposes, my ass is on this chair. I'm experiencing the sensation, the reality, of having my butt on a cushion.

Quote:

---

Because experience is something only consciousness can do. And not necessarily those brain signals of a butt growing numb. Rather, the consciousness seems to dig into the information held in the brain to pull out what it wants to experience. You can experience your ass getting numb if you want, or you can just tune it out.

---

That could also be the brain tuning out the signal over time as it is not directly involved in any active thought. Think of a computer running programs. The programs are always doing something, but the computer can assign priority to certain tasks over others. So, your game of solitaire might take lower precedence over, say, a complete system virus scan. The program is still there. It's still running. But the computer isn't really "thinking" about it. Your brain, in the presence of continuous chemical signals, learns to tune certain ones out. Imagine getting slapped, for example. Your consciousness doesn't pick that one out to experience or disregard. If you get slapped several times in quick succession, your conscious mind won't just stop listening to the signal from your brain. But if you sit down for several hours of slapping, the area will go numb and your brain will tune out the input.

Quote:

---

Knowing that not all brain processes are experienced by consciousness, can we then ask the question if a brain is necessary to experience a reality? Given the diversity of life on planet earth, I think the answer is no.

---

If you don't have a brain or a body, you cannot interpret signals. Doubt me? Gouge out your eyes and tell me if you can see. Have a surgeon take an ice cream scoop to part of your brain and see if you're still the same person. Perhaps the reason you don't experience everything at once is because doing so is not of evolutionary benefit. Perhaps being hyper-aware of everything is too great a strain on the brain. Perhaps we have evolved or adapted content filters that let the brain only send relevant information to the conscious center of the brain for active experience. You call me narrow-minded, but you yourselves do not consider the alternatives.

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?

Quote:

---

Mainstream science says that consciousness originates from the brain. But not all scientists agree. MANY scientists today believe that consciousness is "downloaded" by the brain. In a similar way that your computer (physical) is downloading this website (digital) from the internet (a web of energy holding the digital information). Consciousness is believed to originate, not in the brain, but in a "web of energy".

---

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.

Quote:

---

It's this "web of energy" that exists every where that these scientists are so interested in. It's been called many things, but it's most well known title is the Field. This Field of energy holds the "information" of consciousnesses, like the internet holds the information of a website.

---

Providing the field actually exists.

Quote:

---

These scientists are not satisfied with simply believing, they support their work-in-progress ideas with genuine research. It is a work in progress. But so far, what research is out there is promising.

---

Great. Let me know when they obtain actual results.

Quote:

---

Some of this research is even at the cellular level. I'm too lazy to drag the name of the scientists, but if you're interested I'll get off my lazy ass and find it for you :cheeky:. MY MEMORY IS A BIT FUZZY. But from what I remember this research suggests that our cells can still receive information from our brain, even if the cell has been separated from the rest of body and is thousands of miles away! This research suggests that cells separated from the body, can react as if they are still a part of the body.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Not only do the cells react/receive information as if they are still a part of the body, but they seem to be able to do so INSTANTLY. Again, instantly even if its thousands of miles away.

---

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.

Quote:

---

At the same time, for years people who have received donated organs seem to be able to download information (thoughts, emotions, likes, dislikes, personality traits) of the original owner of the organs! Scientists still don't have an actual answer for this phenomenon.

---

'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?

Quote:

---

While some believe the cells harbors the memory information physically, others believe that this is silly.A single cell doesn't have an addiction to smoking.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Other scientists believe that the reason cells separated from the body can continue to receive information is because: Our thoughts are composed of light, and carries all the properties of light, including it's speed and far extending reach.

---

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

Quote:

---

These scientists don't stop. They just ask more questions. This research is happening with biologists. They believe that every cell in our body has a receptor that is unique to us, only capable of receiving the information carried in our thoughts. Others have set up ingenious experiments to test if thoughts are composed of light.

---

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

Quote:

---

Every day these experiments give strength to the idea that consciousness is so much more than the processes of a brain. But these experiments also radically alter our entire world view. Everything. Including how we should interact with other beings.

---

"Give strength" is not the same as "confirm." Signs may point to the solution that consciousness is from without the brain, but the signs may also be pointing to some other, entirely different solution that nobody has even thought of before.

Quote:

---

With every new discovery, there are only more questions. Were not done here. But I think that there is enough insane research out there to hang up the materialistic world view of consciousness.

---

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.

Thanks for the big post Juroara. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

Maybe I'm just being dense, but I still don't know what you're getting at. I use senses to collect information about the world I perceive to inhabit. Those are the only tools at my disposal. No amount of spiritual enlightenment will change that. So it may be subjective. Maybe you don't exist. That's fine. My senses tell me otherwise. And seeing how they're the only means I have to collect information around me, why should I distrust them? Certainly they may be flawed, but I don't exactly have an alternative. There are beings in my little world that have senses the same as mine, and can help me confirm that in the world I perceive to inhabit, when I'm looking at a building, it's actually there. It might not be, but I don't have a reason to believe otherwise.

[...]

When you said it's eternal, and cannot be created nor destroyed. Ergo, if humans are not gifted with naturally conscious thought, there is an outside entity that somehow bestows it upon us. You can call that a soul or some imperceptible universal force or whatever you want. The bottom line is: unless humans can have conscious thought all by their lonesome, there is something outside the human body and the human mind that gives us consciousness.

[...]

Your body stops working. You're dead. That variable is still there. And now you still have the outside entity problem. The solution with the fewest variables is the one we already know happens: evolution. If we accept that conscious thought has been selected through evolution, as evidence suggests, then there is no outside entity. There is no eternal conscious thing that has been waiting around specifically for humans to evolve. Consciousness becomes a regular bodily process. When the body stops working, so does it. Kind of like pulling the plug on a computer. The computer is still physically there, but there's no power to run it. The power didn't just vanish into thin air, either. It stopped flowing to the computer.

---

Ok I apologize if I was confusing but I can see that overall you don't know what I'm talking about.

Let's look at it this way; let me simplify it symbolically for the sake of discussion:

Here are some properties or depictions I might use to help define consciousness:

Note: '>' means "greater than" or "has priority over".

Consciousness > Manifest Universe
Subjective > Objective
Self-existence > Proof
Awareness > Concept
Eternal > Transitory
Intangible & Formless > Tangible Material / Form
Field of Consciousness > Degrees/Gradations of Consciousness and Attractor patterns
Consciousness registers all information of the universe.

Therefore:

Consciousness =/= thought-forms.
Consciousness =/= awake vs. asleep.
Consciousness =/= sensory input.

Consciousness: Intangible capacity for life and experience and exists as a boundless field of energy. Consciousness is contextual and is therefore not limited to a mere thought-form, since thought-forms are what appears within consciousness. Sensory phenomena also appear within consciousness and awareness, but senses are not consciousness itself. You can be unable to perceive out of every one of your five senses, yet you may still be conscious.

To know of consciousness is a purely subjective knowingness, and it already exists but is typically outside ordinary human awareness. It is not "outside" anything in terms of space, yet it is an ever-present field, and therefore it is not an entity either. The fact that consciousness encompasses the whole universe means it cannot be located in time or space. All reality is subjective. Objective existence still has a subjective premise and cannot exist independently.

Quote:

---

Look, I got the link, and I can tell you I'm not going to sit through an hour and a half of youtube videos. So, if you'd like a level playing field to argue on, perhaps you could help elaborate on how NDE's prove consciousness is not subject to time nor space. And what do you mean here by "experience?" I experience the wind. I experience tastes, sensations, thoughts, feelings. In other words, I experience reality as interpreted by the brain. This is very much a matter of chemistry and mathematics, as you put it. Much research is taking place to try and understand conscious thought and its source. THAT is how you observe the world and draw conclusions about it. Not by observing some little-known phenomenon and trying to explain it in some way that makes sense to you.

[...]

Quantum physics! Another relatively new frontier. Again, you're taking relatively vague or ill-known concepts and trying to make consciousness fit within them. Unexplained events are exactly that: unexplained. There are things in this world we do not know. Mankind has been deceived before. People thought the world was flat. It appeared flat enough. But as our understanding grew, we found it was round. And also not in the center of the universe.

---

This is not ill-known, that's for sure. If you actually showed an interest and looked at the thread and the videos I'm talking about, you would know better about what I'm discussing. It is all very obvious and well researched, you might notice.

NDE, enlightenment or what's within normal human consciousness, is essentially not subject to time or space because the field of consciousness is non-linear. A NDE or spiritual enlightenment is just a confirmation or awareness of this. This even further contradicts why an eternal, consistent, all-pervading phenomena should be a byproduct of chemical reactions. It is well known here to be the other way around, like induction. After all, material does not encompass consciousness, it arises out of it. This is why "life" is invunerable to material forms and processes; which are mere expressions of it.

Science works from the other direction, but while spirituality works from different realms or paradigms. Mario, if you want concrete evidence, you will be falling short in your expectations. You really shouldn't be in this forum (Inner Sanctum) if that's all you can tolerate.

There's a lot in that post that I don't agree with...

I like evidence. Evidence is good. And I'm afraid I'm going to require concrete evidence before I start drawing conclusions. Sorry, mate, but seems like we're gonna have to agree to disagree. I'm a material sort of fellow. It's who I am and what I do. You're not. That's fine. May you find happiness in whatever life this is. :)

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. :P

Quote:

---

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'.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

'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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...:(

Quote:

---

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. :P

---

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. :)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

I look forward to the results. :)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...".

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. :cheeky: 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.

Quote:

---

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. :cheeky: 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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. :cheeky: 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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. :P

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.

Quote:

---

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.


:panic:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?"

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

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

---

This one isn't a post-modernist.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. :)

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Not I.

By the way Spockman, why do you ask?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

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.



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.



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.



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.

---

So if God was not supernatural and the afterlife was not paranormal, but all of it was subjected to the same natural laws that everything else is, (albeit laws that we don't yet understand,) you would have no problem with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

Yes I could be. Show me I couldn't be. Reality is relative.

---

Penguins in Antarctica are illiterate and don't have views on the afterlife or access to the internet.

Reality is not relative, nor is it a byproduct of substance. Now you are being inconsistent.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Knowing of existence is the same as being aware of existence; it is consciousness. No channeling, nothing "outside", nothing "supernatural". Perhaps it is something "you absolutely know is true without a doubt", not only because there is no conceivable way of being mistaken, but no actual, valid way. You don't need to believe it, you can however, choose to believe it is a hallucination. That's your problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

So if God was not supernatural and the afterlife was not paranormal, but all of it was subjected to the same natural laws that everything else is, (albeit laws that we don't yet understand,) you would have no problem with that?

---

If you could conclusively prove that there is a god and an afterlife, I will change my mind. That simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Penguins in Antarctica are illiterate and don't have views on the afterlife or access to the internet.

Reality is not relative, nor is it a byproduct of substance. Now you are being inconsistent.

---

The penguins of Antarctica as you know them are illiterate and have no views on afterlife. That doesn't mean I can't be hallucinating Matrix-style, and I really am a penguin dreaming about being a human.

Quote:

---

Knowing of existence is the same as being aware of existence; it is consciousness. No channeling, nothing "outside", nothing "supernatural". Perhaps it is something "you absolutely know is true without a doubt", not only because there is no conceivable way of being mistaken, but no actual, valid way. You don't need to believe it, you can however, choose to believe it is a hallucination. That's your problem.

---

I don't believe it's a hallucination. That is me playing Devil's Advocate. My entire argument is that consciousness is the sole product of the human mind. That is all I'm arguing. That, when the brain stops working, so does your consciousness. That there is no afterlife. That, once you die, you no longer know that you exist, you receive no sensory input, you cannot think, and that generally all that is "you" is no more.

This is kind of a wrench in the discussion, but if the universe is expanding and contracting: and will do so forever along the same lines each time, and everything that has ever happened is doomed to be repeated because of this, would that be an after life? Or would it be a different you- so not really you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

This is kind of a wrench in the discussion, but if the universe is expanding and contracting: and will do so forever along the same lines each time, and everything that has ever happened is doomed to be repeated because of this, would that be an after life? Or would it be a different you- so not really you?

---

Well, the contraction bit is open for debate. If the recently-discovered dark matter turns out to be just that, then the universe is likely to reverse its expansion at some point in time. But I digress. If the universe is indeed bound to crunch and explode indefinitely, then all the matter that fell exactly where it is in this universe at this point in time is going to again at some point, given an infinite amount of time. Which means that "you" will exist again some day. But, "you" won't really be existing. You'll have lost all your experiences, memories, consciousness...the "you" has ceased to exist. Rather, you have created an exact matter replica. If you take out the factor of time, assume you could create a person exactly like you down to the atomic level, then go and stand right beside them. You may think exactly the same thoughts and have exactly the same memories, but you are two separate entities, no matter how similar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

The penguins of Antarctica as you know them are illiterate and have no views on afterlife. That doesn't mean I can't be hallucinating Matrix-style, and I really am a penguin dreaming about being a human.

---

Nonsense-talk aside though, you're not accepting that consciousness is independent of whether you're hallucinating or not. The penguin knows of existence, whether it is a "matrix-style" dream or not. Do you see why the hallucination is irrelevant? It is not being relied upon. Consciousness cannot be flawed; it is part of all reality. Concepts and interpretations therein can be flawed. Dreams can be false. But everything in itself is its own truth. Two different realms of experience. The paradox here is that consciousness and existence don't need to be justified or proven.

Quote:

---

I don't believe it's a hallucination. That is me playing Devil's Advocate. My entire argument is that consciousness is the sole product of the human mind. That is all I'm arguing. That, when the brain stops working, so does your consciousness. That there is no afterlife. That, once you die, you no longer know that you exist, you receive no sensory input, you cannot think, and that generally all that is "you" is no more.

---

I already knew what your argument was. This is getting tedious; it would be great if you can go more in depth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

This is kind of a wrench in the discussion, but if the universe is expanding and contracting: and will do so forever along the same lines each time, and everything that has ever happened is doomed to be repeated because of this, would that be an after life? Or would it be a different you- so not really you?

---

This seems to be subtly alluding to the fact that everybody is part of the universe; everybody is an inseparable part of the greater whole. This greater whole: the "universe" as we call it, is what we are part of. There are endless forms that exist within the universe, and all of them can be described as transitory. The issue is that humans think they are bodies. Of course, the bodies, their personalities and "you" all are born and die. But in consciousness, we are not subject to death and we do not really exist as a body; a "you" or "me". In consciousness, it does not matter whether the universe began again or not, because every universe will be the same, and in the end, birth and death just describe appearances. The notion of the possible after-life or the continuation of one's soul is therefore part of wisdom, not proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

The paradox here is that consciousness and existence don't need to be justified or proven.

---

But the afterlife does. I know consciousness exists. This I'm not debating. But the afterlife is an entirely different matter.

Quote:

---

I already knew what your argument was. This is getting tedious; it would be great if you can go more in depth.

---

I don't really know how to. Seems fairly straightforward to me. Brain = source of consciousness. Ergo, when the brain stops working (dies), so does consciousness. Put someone in a persistent vegetative state. Their brain (or at least key parts of it) have been destroyed. They are not conscious. You're not destroying either matter or energy. All you're doing is inhibiting normal brain function. Similarly, the ability to think is directly related to having conscious thought. Without the power to process what you're observing, or to consider even the tiniest of things, you are not conscious. It doesn't matter if your eyes pick up light...unless you can process that information, you aren't conscious. (Note I'm not saying blind people aren't conscious. There's more to it than loss of sense. You must lose cognition, too).

Quote:

---

This seems to be subtly alluding to the fact that everybody is part of the universe; everybody is an inseparable part of the greater whole. This greater whole: the "universe" as we call it, is what we are part of. There are endless forms that exist within the universe, and all of them can be described as transitory. The issue is that humans think they are bodies. Of course, the bodies, their personalities and "you" all are born and die. But in consciousness, we are not subject to death and we do not really exist as a body; a "you" or "me". In consciousness, it does not matter whether the universe began again or not, because every universe will be the same, and in the end, birth and death just describe appearances. The notion of the possible after-life or the continuation of one's soul is therefore part of wisdom, not proof.

---

This is where I think our main problem lies. You argue that consciousness is something beyond death. I argue that it is a direct result of the normal biological processes that take place inside the brain, and dies when the brain dies. Why must I be wrong? What is it, exactly, that makes you right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

But the afterlife does. I know consciousness exists. This I'm not debating. But the afterlife is an entirely different matter.

---

I have implied that consciousness is an essential quality of life itself, not mere "alertness" or the fact of being conscious (vs. unconscious). Awareness arises out of the intangible nature of life; not a material form. In this sense, investigating consciousness as intrinsic to the nature of life brings about a better understanding of the after-life, even if it is intuited. After all, wouldn't studying more of "life" inside ones awareness help one understand the possibility of the "after-life"?

Can you otherwise distinguish/define the two terms (consciousness vs. afterlife)?

Quote:

---

I don't really know how to. Seems fairly straightforward to me. Brain = source of consciousness. Ergo, when the brain stops working (dies), so does consciousness. Put someone in a persistent vegetative state. Their brain (or at least key parts of it) have been destroyed. They are not conscious. You're not destroying either matter or energy. All you're doing is inhibiting normal brain function. Similarly, the ability to think is directly related to having conscious thought. Without the power to process what you're observing, or to consider even the tiniest of things, you are not conscious. It doesn't matter if your eyes pick up light...unless you can process that information, you aren't conscious. (Note I'm not saying blind people aren't conscious. There's more to it than loss of sense. You must lose cognition, too).

---

You may be able to lose all these facets, but none of these are the intangible capacity for awareness. Brain = mechanism for processing all mental, emotional and sensory phenomena. If the brain is the source of consciousness, what part of the brain constitutes for being aware of reality, especially reality that is not conceptual, detectable or provable? The whole realm of spirituality is rejected for the presumption that the brain creates reality.

Quote:

---

This is where I think our main problem lies. You argue that consciousness is something beyond death. I argue that it is a direct result of the normal biological processes that take place inside the brain, and dies when the brain dies. Why must I be wrong? What is it, exactly, that makes you right?

---

The question is, what is the "main problem"? Neither of us can really give decent proof, yet I have admitted that and given better way around it. It is the paradigm issue that is the main problem. If somebody could give you evidence for life, would you believe that you're alive? You don't need to rely on your heart beating; that happens automatically. When it comes to the nature of life as consciousness; as a soul, it comes down to your knowledge of existence, not somebody else's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

I have implied that consciousness is an essential quality of life itself, not mere "alertness" or the fact of being conscious (vs. unconscious). Awareness arises out of the intangible nature of life; not a material form. In this sense, investigating consciousness as intrinsic to the nature of life brings about a better understanding of the after-life, even if it is intuited. After all, wouldn't studying more of "life" inside ones awareness help one understand the possibility of the "after-life"?

---

See, I argue that consciousness is not an essential quality of life. Amoebas certainly don't appear sentient. And life itself is rather interesting. To date, we have not discovered any sort of "intangible" nature of life. It is...chemical reactions. Not sure what you're really trying to say here. I'm all for studying life and consciousness and whatnot, but how exactly you are getting the afterlife out of all this is a bit beyond me.

Quote:

---

Can you otherwise distinguish/define the two terms (consciousness vs. afterlife)?

---

Consciousness: a. Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.
b. Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered.
2. Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious life on the planet.

Afterlife: 1 : an existence after death

Seem pretty darn unique to me. Consciousness essentially means having thought, will, or perception. The afterlife is life after death, in whatever way, shape, or form that may take. To have an afterlife, you must first establish that consciousness is something that continues on once the human body has died. Unfortunately, there is no reason backed up by evidence to believe this to be so. Maybe at a future date, but not in the present.

Quote:

---

You may be able to lose all these facets, but none of these are the intangible capacity for awareness. Brain = mechanism for processing all mental, emotional and sensory phenomena. If the brain is the source of consciousness, what part of the brain constitutes for being aware of reality, especially reality that is not conceptual, detectable or provable?

---

Oh, but it does so much more than that! It stores and calls upon memories, regulates the body, does every bit of thinking. It is the thing that allows you to be conscious in the first place. If you lose all those facets, you aren't conscious anymore. You cannot conceive even the tiniest of thoughts, yet alone your place in the universe. You can't think that you exist. You are unable to. As for exactly what part of the brain is an actively researched topic. Much is yet to be learned, but we are making headway. And what do you mean by "aware of reality that is not conceptual, detectable, or provable?" I detect this reality. It is real. It may be flawed, but it is damn close enough. Every other potential reality is just so much speculation.

Quote:

---

The whole realm of spirituality is rejected for the presumption that the brain creates reality.

---

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

Quote:

---

The question is, what is the "main problem"? Neither of us can really give decent proof, yet I have admitted that and given better way around it. It is the paradigm issue that is the main problem. If somebody could give you evidence for life, would you believe that you're alive? You don't need to rely on your heart beating; that happens automatically. When it comes to the nature of life as consciousness; as a soul, it comes down to your knowledge of existence, not somebody else's.

---

Again, not sure what you're saying. We have evidence for life. I can look at plant cells under a microscope, and they're alive. I know I'm alive. And I kinda do have to rely on my heart beating, seeing as how without it I'll die and cease to exist. And a soul...what balderdash.

I'm largely convinced that, in the nano seconds before your death, you will experience what seems to you like an eternity, in whatever after-life you so choose to believe in.

That's what Christians experience heaven and white lights, and atheists experience black-nothingness when they die.

I'll just be content with manipulating the "after-life" to my whim, sort of like being in an eternal lucid dream. Sounds kind of fun, actually. Best get experiencing life to the fullest so that my mind has plenty of experiences to draw from to create this world for me, huh? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

See, I argue that consciousness is not an essential quality of life. Amoebas certainly don't appear sentient. And life itself is rather interesting. To date, we have not discovered any sort of "intangible" nature of life. It is...chemical reactions.

---

You don't get it, you will never discover it because you can't discover "intangible" nature! What is discoverable is tangible. What is intangible has no form. What exactly do you expect?

Quote:

---

And what do you mean by "aware of reality that is not conceptual, detectable, or provable?" I detect this reality. It is real. It may be flawed, but it is damn close enough. Every other potential reality is just so much speculation.

---

How can you detect it if you can't prove it?

Quote:

---

I know I'm alive. And I kinda do have to rely on my heart beating, seeing as how without it I'll die and cease to exist. And a soul...what balderdash.

---

If you say you know you're alive, do you have to check if your heart is beating? That's the point. Does it start with you finding your heart/pulse, or does it start with you knowing that you're alive, already?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

You don't get it, you will never discover it because you can't discover "intangible" nature! What is discoverable is tangible. What is intangible has no form. What exactly do you expect?

---

That the intangible is an unnecessary thing. If it is truly intangible, it has no impact, no bearing, no observable effect on reality. It is an unnecessary variable in the equation. It is not only nonexistent, but completely unneeded.

Quote:

---

How can you detect it if you can't prove it?

---

I use my eyes to look around. Reality detected.

Quote:

---

If you say you know you're alive, do you have to check if your heart is beating? That's the point. Does it start with you finding your heart/pulse, or does it start with you knowing that you're alive, already?

---

Well, at any given time, I guess I just sort of suppose I'm still alive. Seeing as how I'm still functioning, I kind of know that my heart is beating. It's a fact my brain arrives at without ever passing through conscious thought. Though those times I suspect I may be dead, a quick pulse check sets my mind at ease.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

That the intangible is an unnecessary thing. If it is truly intangible, it has no impact, no bearing, no observable effect on reality. It is an unnecessary variable in the equation. It is not only nonexistent, but completely unneeded.

---

If it is truly intangible, you can't detect it because there is no tangibility and no form; that's the definition of intangible. What is intangible is not merely "non-existent", it is only non-existent as tangibility. Awareness is intangible, as are other dimensions.

Quote:

---

I use my eyes to look around. Reality detected.

---

Nope that doesn't count. If reality needed to be detected, you wouldn't know you had eyes to begin with would you? You use your eyes to detect the world around you; the physical, perceivable world, which is not beyond proof, concepts or detection as an object.

Quote:

---

Well, at any given time, I guess I just sort of suppose I'm still alive. Seeing as how I'm still functioning, I kind of know that my heart is beating. It's a fact my brain arrives at without ever passing through conscious thought. Though those times I suspect I may be dead, a quick pulse check sets my mind at ease.

---

There it is: no need for proof huh? It's a redundant fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

If it is truly intangible, you can't detect it because there is no tangibility and no form; that's the definition of intangible. What is intangible is not merely "non-existent", it is only non-existent as tangibility. Awareness is intangible, as are other dimensions.

---

Awareness is observable. I can observe it. It has an obvious impact on my reality. This "intangible" nature of yours, conversely, is not observable, has no impact on reality, and is a completely unnecessary variable. It's adding more complexity to the equation that doesn't need to be there.

Quote:

---

Nope that doesn't count. If reality needed to be detected, you wouldn't know you had eyes to begin with would you? You use your eyes to detect the world around you; the physical, perceivable world, which is not beyond proof, concepts or detection as an object.

---

You've officially lost me. What is your argument here? What are you trying to get at?

Quote:

---

There it is: no need for proof huh? It's a redundant fact.

---

Fact. Proof. I thought we weren't having any of that now, were we? I'm aware of the fact that my heart is beating at some level of consciousness; it just isn't dominating my active conscious thought.

I think it'd be like before you were born conceived. You'd basically be non-existent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puffin

I think it'd be like before you were born conceived. You'd basically be non-existent.

---

Do you know what it was like before you were born, according to your current knowledge?


Mario, I do not understand how you can miss this. Why don't you explain to me how you can observe "awareness"? And why can you "observe" awareness, when awareness is obviously beyond observation and yet part of it? To be honest, I am very surprised you don't get my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Do you know what it was like before you were born, according to your current knowledge?

---

That is exactly the point: you didn't exist. You have no memory of that time, and had no consciousness. A return to that state would not only be the most logical, but the simplest. Even if you did somehow live on, without knowing that you exist or having any memory at all, it doesn't really matter.

Quote:

---

Mario, I do not understand how you can miss this. Why don't you explain to me how you can observe "awareness"? And why can you "observe" awareness, when awareness is obviously beyond observation and yet part of it? To be honest, I am very surprised you don't get my point.

---

I observe it in myself and others. I experience it, do I not? That is observation. I can watch other people be aware.

I'm surprised you're thinking you're making a point. Where in our debate are we, and how did we get here? I'm still on the afterlife, and whether or not "we" will be around to experience it. I argue no. What argue thee?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Do you know what it was like before you were born, according to your current knowledge?

---

No. That's why I believe that no one knows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

That is exactly the point: you didn't exist. You have no memory of that time, and had no consciousness. A return to that state would not only be the most logical, but the simplest. Even if you did somehow live on, without knowing that you exist or having any memory at all, it doesn't really matter.

---

If I couldn't remember, it is best not to draw an immediate conclusion, and so simply find some other method. Memory is unreliable. It is easy to say that people forget things, but that's not to say certain things never happened at all.

Quote:

---

I observe it in myself and others. I experience it, do I not? That is observation. I can watch other people be aware.

---

You are essentially saying that you are observing observing. That cannot be done. You cannot observe awareness as such. That is why you cannot "detect" it. It spontaneously exists whether you think you're experiencing it or not.


In saying that we do not know what happened before us in this life, and that we cannot prove what comes next after us in this life, we can only learn from the current existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

If I couldn't remember, it is best not to draw an immediate conclusion, and so simply find some other method. Memory is unreliable. It is easy to say that people forget things, but that's not to say certain things never happened at all.

---

Regardless, if you can't remember your life, "you" cease to exist.

Quote:

---

You are essentially saying that you are observing observing. That cannot be done. You cannot observe awareness as such. That is why you cannot "detect" it. It spontaneously exists whether you think you're experiencing it or not.

---

I use my powers of observation to observe that I can, indeed, use my powers of observation. This can be done quite nicely.

Quote:

---

In saying that we do not know what happened before us in this life, and that we cannot prove what comes next after us in this life, we can only learn from the current existence.

---

But you do believe that there is something after this life, no? Well, that is your choice. I believe otherwise, but agree that we may never know what's going on for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

Regardless, if you can't remember your life, "you" cease to exist.

---

It is really disappointing how shallow you're making this. I may as well forget the discussion therefore making it "cease" to exist. And you don't see the flaw in the simple wording?

Quote:

---

I use my powers of observation to observe that I can, indeed, use my powers of observation. This can be done quite nicely.

---

In what context? How can you perceive the world around you? First, you must be aware. Then you can look around you; then you can "use your powers" of observation, but you will only be limited to your senses.

Quote:

---

But you do believe that there is something after this life, no? Well, that is your choice. I believe otherwise, but agree that we may never know what's going on for sure.

---

This doesn't follow. If you agree that you will never know what's going on for sure, maybe you should re-trace your conclusions.

I have nothing further to add.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

It is really disappointing how shallow you're making this. I may as well forget the discussion therefore making it "cease" to exist. And you don't see the flaw in the simple wording?

---

If everyone forgets it in entirety and all record that it ever happened is removed, it effectively does cease to exist. It perhaps existed in the past, but the conscious embodiment of this argument certainly doesn't linger. I see no flaws. If you lose all your memories and start over at square one, "you" as you are right now is no more. He has ceased to exist. He has been replaced, and in doing so, has been eliminated. It doesn't matter if some conscious entity continues on if it doesn't remember a goddamn thing.

Quote:

---

In what context? How can you perceive the world around you? First, you must be aware. Then you can look around you; then you can "use your powers" of observation, but you will only be limited to your senses.

---

Yes! Senses! Very good. I can use my senses to observe the world around me. And thanks to my awareness, that information actually means something! So instead of looking at an apple and not processing that, I can use my awareness to identify it as an apple, and perhaps consider eating it. I am experiencing the effects of my awareness. I am observing it in some sense, if even indirectly.

Quote:

---

This doesn't follow. If you agree that you will never know what's going on for sure, maybe you should re-trace your conclusions.

I have nothing further to add.

---

No. Listen to me. I say we do not know. Belief is something entirely different from knowledge. Belief is assumption. Belief is holding something to be true without any evidence to support it. As a logical human being, I cannot say something exists if I don't know it exists. What you would have me do is assume the afterlife is real. This is just as bad, if not worse, than assuming it isn't. At least I have a lack of supporting evidence to go off of. You have absolutely nothing to justify your belief. You say we don't know, but you think you do.

Mario and Really, you two are arguing about the difference between realism and idealism. realism saying that the only things that exist exist because of some fundamental physical laws, and all perception is based on that. Idealism stating the opposite, that the idea of reality as being physically external isn't true, and that all is made up from the mind , and consciousness comes from the mind/unknown, as opposed to the mind coming from physical existence, and consciousness therefore being a perception of physical existence of the external.

It would be well for both of you to exercise your conscious, regardless of your thoughts of it's meaning, and attempt to understand the theory behind the both opposing beliefs, whether it's for reality as a whole, or only consciousness in particular.

As for the afterlife in relation to consciousness, they are related in the same way that anything is related to the consciousness IMO. The consciousness is the only way to be aware of the perception of what is real, of your 5 senses, etc etc. I've heard of the difference between objective consciousness, from plants and less complex animals, and subjective consciousness, from self aware beings. Objective consciousness being an existence through memory, subjective through awareness.

That being said, most people aren't aware of what they're doing in life. Lots of our consciousness is lost in memory IMO, and only through awareness can you be conscious at all times, in the present moment. That being said, the question isn't the perception of death or the afterlife, the question is the type of consciousness in that perception. Objective, subjective, or lack of consciousness? A lack of consciousness would be the same as nothing, even if the senses are engaged, and if your belief is that we have no consciousness, than the afterlife will have the same exact feeling as this life IMO.

This of course is only my speculation, and is subject to critique.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackALope2323

I'm largely convinced that, in the nano seconds before your death, you will experience what seems to you like an eternity, in whatever after-life you so choose to believe in.

That's what Christians experience heaven and white lights, and atheists experience black-nothingness when they die.

I'll just be content with manipulating the "after-life" to my whim, sort of like being in an eternal lucid dream. Sounds kind of fun, actually. Best get experiencing life to the fullest so that my mind has plenty of experiences to draw from to create this world for me, huh? ;)

---

Man, your onto it! I'm surprised no one has mentioned DMT yet.. DMT is the most POWERFUL hallucogenic in the world. Far more powerful than LSD and even Salvia. It is realised at the moment you are born, which is interesting enough. It is realised when you sleep, to prevent a build up which would kill you. And I bet you all know what that causes. Without DMT, none of us would be on this forum now discussing the afterlife-DMT causes dreams. And, what I find the MOST interesting, is what happens at the moment you die. All of the DMT that has being building up since the moment you began, is FLOODED into the brain and you will trip your fucking balls off! There is 5-6 minutes of brain activity after you die, in which time will have NO meaning from your perception, people who have the synthesized version say thre trip seemed to last for hours, even though just 5 minutes minutes will have past since they started there enlightening trip. Yes, this all very proven, and I do think that in some senses, we will be able to control the trip. BUT, how good we are in this life, sorry, how HAPPY we are in this life, I think will directly affect how enjoyable the trip is. Drugs and lucid dreaming will help. There is NO such thing as 'AFTER LIFE'. After life, comes death, rendering you as concious as a pencil. Whether there is life after your body dies however, is another matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewp

Ever ponder what would happen after you die? I can't think of what it feels like. I can't imagine just not "being" here. It's an amazing subject to study.

Don Piper was a Baptist preacher when he was a victim of a car crash. He was killed instantly upon impact. Paramedics found no signs of life in him. 90 minutes later, he was alive again. Don is author of the book 90 Minutes in Heaven. In the book, he describes heaven.

I am Christian, so I believe his story. He describes a euphoria, and a feeling of eternal happiness. I know this is more religion than science, but what do you all believe happens when someone dies?


I'm new to this forum, so excuse me if I posted this in the wrong section, but I believe this to be Beyond Dreaming...

---

Don Piper's story sounds very fascinting indeed. Sounds like I want to read that book.
And really, you don't have to be a Christian to believe his story. I believe his story. Or rather I KNOW it to be true ;)
I do not follow any particulair religious beliefsystem, and yet I Know of the Heaven which he describes, having experienced it countless times.


Whenever we Dream at night of travelling afoot through forrests, while your body lies motionless in bed; To me this experience is proof that Disembodied consciousness is possible.
Dreaming goes to show that the Consciousness does not need the body to exist. It can appearantly exist seperately from the body entirely.

If a living being has died, it's Consciousness is no longer in it's body. That is the one thing we, the living, know about Death as a fact.
A breakthrough experience on vaporised DMT will give you a pretty good idea of what Dying could be like.
Allthough DMT is harmless physically, it shares 1 common quality with Dying; Disembodyment of Consciousness.
DMT is known to be released inside the human brain in massive quantaties uppon dying and is believed to be responsible
for mystical, visionairy Near Death Experiences. If you compair Near Death Experiences with vaporised DMT experiences,
the resemblance is striking.

When someone inhales a breakthrough dose of DMT vapor, they will find that their Consciousness is no longer in their body.
Instead it is launched into an indescribable, immaterial realm.
I can hear many people thinking "what the hell is DMT?" and the following 5 part, short documentairy can answer that question better than I ever could:
DMT; The Spirit Molecule part 1 You can find the other 4 parts there yourself.

This documentairy will also cover NDEs and give more insight into what dying might be like.