# What happens when you die?



## romsoccer12

I often find my self considering all the things that can happen when we die.  Its quite enjoyable, almost like an unsolvable mystery that we will never figure out, but always keep us thinking about it.  
I would just like to hear some opinions on what YOU think happens when you die.  I wont judge, and I hope no one else does, based on what you say so just let it all out!  
Heres my idea right now, even though it switchs roughly every month =)
I believe that every humans mind creats heaven and hell.  What people thought of you, creates what happens when you die.  For example, millions of people hate hitler, so our minds create the hell of hitler.  What makes me thinks this is I have met my dad in my dreams once.  He wasnt literally my dad, but he was made up of everything I remembered him as.  I know this isnt true, but its a cool theory. 
Id love to hear some more!


----------



## n3ophy7e

Moving to P&S


----------



## vegan

your spirit gets sucked into the bl matrix and you get to read all the threads about "what happens when you die?" for free


----------



## L2R

life goes on


----------



## Creep

What happens when you die? This is a useless thought, and not worthy of being thought of. We're all gonna find out when we die, simple as that.


----------



## Mike E

Everyone will find out, but none can say.


----------



## junkiecosmonaut

You rot in the ground.


----------



## AfterGlow

life ends for you.   it continues for others.   its that simple.


----------



## Blue_Winged_One

i wish i could say i had a simple answer for you but i dont. i have like 3 notebooks filled with my thoughts on the subject. for the most part i feel that our conciousness is slowly filtered back into the collective human subcoounicious untill we are ready to be reborn. if you have ever lost somebody really close to you know that when you think of them you still have that feeling like there is a little part of them that you are carrying around with you. that little nagging suspision that they are not completly gone. in my view of life the universe and everythng that is because the univers that our minds create for us to live in still contains the essance of that person. it may be fadded, fragmented, or just an emotional memory you have of that person. and i feel that only when all fragments of the lost soul is filtered back into the collective subconcious can that person be reborn since their soul is complete again. thats the very short version of what i feel if you want to talk some morw about it i would welcome a PM.


----------



## capstone

Death is only the Beginning. Your soul becomes cleansed of its burdens, and you get remanifested into that which your reality creates.


----------



## Portillo

How many times must this question be asked.


----------



## Portillo

capstone said:


> Death is only the Beginning. Your soul becomes cleansed of its burdens, and you get remanifested into that which your reality creates.



Dante leaves hell behind; cleaning himself from the stains of evil; now he will face his sins; guided by Virgil and searching for salvation and Beatrice; Ostia, is only the start, of the new journey through purgatory.


----------



## capstone

Its like you are a drop of water returning to the ocean of universal consciousness. If one is not ready for this, they essentially go into a battle with their own ego, those torturing demons, until one realizes these are but old friends trying to help relieve one of their material life's burdens. All that which holds a person back from their next manifestation, the next playground teaching tool for the soul, these are the things with which the human condition has been instilled, holding a person back from being an infinite consciousness. 

For some, these burdens are part of the prison that ties them to this planet, and they unknowing return life after life here, ignorant of the fact their soul can remanifest somewhere else. Problem is, its not widely known that everyone is a soul, and their body is the lower vibrational resonance of their manifestation. So death of that lower vibration would simply be the realignment of that expressive energy. Not any end, or rot, only another path on the journey.


----------



## Musmaro

Blackness, rebirth, life, death, repeat.


----------



## Jamshyd

The simplest answer to this question is, IMO, based on empirical fact - or even just simple observation: when you die, the physical constituents of your being get recycled into the environment, giving free material to be used to make new life. 

After all, your own physical being was composed and sustained entirely out of dead material.


----------



## Trigeminal

junkiecosmonaut said:


> You rot in the ground.


This.


----------



## Mike E

Everyone has observed the physical, reality or tv etc...

But what really 'bugs' me is how physical conciousness determines when you are dead?

It seems like an imploding time expansive fractal of reality with no answer.


----------



## Raw Evil

The same thing that happens to the operating system in your computer when you hit the power button: its existence ends. Unlike the computer, however, we cannot reconstruct our existence by simply turning on the power switch again.


----------



## Bardeaux

Jamshyd said:


> The simplest answer to this question is, IMO, based on empirical fact - or even just simple observation: when you die, the physical constituents of your being get recycled into the environment, giving free material to be used to make new life.
> 
> After all, your own physical being was composed and sustained entirely out of dead material.



Absolutely. This is true for every living thing. We are the building blocks of future organisms


----------



## Nexus6

capstone said:


> Its like you are a drop of water returning to the ocean of universal consciousness. If one is not ready for this, they essentially go into a battle with their own ego, those torturing demons, until one realizes these are but old friends trying to help relieve one of their material life's burdens. All that which holds a person back from their next manifestation, the next playground teaching tool for the soul, these are the things with which the human condition has been instilled, holding a person back from being an infinite consciousness.
> 
> For some, these burdens are part of the prison that ties them to this planet, and they unknowing return life after life here, ignorant of the fact their soul can remanifest somewhere else. Problem is, its not widely known that everyone is a soul, and their body is the lower vibrational resonance of their manifestation. So death of that lower vibration would simply be the realignment of that expressive energy. Not any end, or rot, only another path on the journey.



That's really beautiful. Did you get that point of view from some kind of eastern philosophy like zen buddhism?


----------



## capstone

^When I was 17, had a car accident that killed me for near 2 minutes. These are the things I feel I saw, but yes, I make it a point to study all religions.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

I'm pretty sold on reincarnation or rebirth of some sort.


----------



## justmyluck

I believe you just stop existing. Sure, it's a horrible thing to think about; moving on and leaving all your loved ones behind. But everyone will experience it. *Everyone before us, Everyone after us.* I'm scared of leaving my loved ones here, and the life I live, but I'm not scared for what lies beyond. For one, there's no need to fret over the inevitable. Second, if we were to cease existing; like we were before we were born. It wouldn't be a terrible experience. Just try and think about before you were born; you can't. So my guess is that death and the afterlife will be a similar experience. Or lack there of? If that makes sense.


----------



## L2R

Portillo said:


> How many times must this question be asked.



exactly four times.


----------



## Sweet P

A state of non-existence. Just like before you were conceived.


----------



## Portillo

Impacto Profundo said:


> exactly four times.



I meant in the history of Philosophy and Spirituality.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Portillo, it's a topic that usually has at least one active thread devoted to it. Having read this forum for years, I've realized the topics are mostly cyclical -- the most popular topics always have one or more active threads going, while the less popular ones come round a couple times a year, and don't generate much discussion each time. Every now and then one comes around that's completely unique, and those are the ones to archive.


----------



## Sega420

right. 




maybe.


----------



## thespaceweare

You're duped into believing you are your name, past experiences, career, etc.  In short, you're duped into believing with conviction that you are your mind/thoughts.  When you die, your mind/thoughts dissolve.  Then the essence of who you truly are shines through.


----------



## Mike E

Quote "A state of non-existence. Just like before you were conceived."

Implying that you had some degree of consciousness before you were conceived?

Otherwise, how can you determine existence from non-existence?


----------



## Sweet P

^ No degree of consciousness was implied. A state of non-existence entails a lack of consciousness. Perhaps one can only determine existence from non-existence when they are conscious (and therefore existing)?


----------



## footscrazy

When the brain is no longer alive, you cease to exist. When the brain stops working 'you' are gone too. I do wonder if people could be raised from the dead if only there was a way to stop the brain and body degrading as soon as its essential requirements (oxygen, glucose etc) weren't being met.


----------



## dr-ripple

*agreed*



AfterGlow said:


> life ends for you.   it continues for others.   its that simple.



agreed


----------



## Nexus6

capstone said:


> ^When I was 17, had a car accident that killed me for near 2 minutes. These are the things I feel I saw, but yes, I make it a point to study all religions.



I envy your insight, the closest thing I've had to a near death experience was surgery under total anesthesia. It really freaked me out how my consciousness just skipped over 4 hours and reappeared. I knew it would happen like that but the experience felt so strange to me, like where do we go when the power gets shut off? Am I still the same person who sat down in that dentist's chair or did that guy whisk off somewhere else as I took his place? I personally believe in "universal consciousness". I think we all feel like different people only because we store memories in separate bodies.


----------



## retired_chemist

footscrazy said:


> I do wonder if people could be raised from the dead if only there was a way to stop the brain and body degrading as soon as its essential requirements (oxygen, glucose etc) weren't being met.



Yeah.  It's called life support.  In the US if you end up on it things can get really messy.


----------



## Nexus6

footscrazy said:


> When the brain is no longer alive, you cease to exist. When the brain stops working 'you' are gone too. I do wonder if people could be raised from the dead if only there was a way to stop the brain and body degrading as soon as its essential requirements (oxygen, glucose etc) weren't being met.



Just remember, sometimes what comes out of the ground isn't what you put in.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Nexus6 said:


> I envy your insight, the closest thing I've had to a near death experience was surgery under total anesthesia. It really freaked me out how my consciousness just skipped over 4 hours and reappeared. I knew it would happen like that but the experience felt so strange to me, like where do we go when the power gets shut off? Am I still the same person who sat down in that dentist's chair or did that guy whisk off somewhere else as I took his place? I personally believe in "universal consciousness". I think we all feel like different people only because we store memories in separate bodies.



I also envy people who've had a near death experience, though I've not had the guts to say so. I've had some experiences that were borderline mystical or visionary. I've even had a couple strange experiences that were well within the realm of paranormal. But having read so much about NDEs, and the way they profoundly affect the people they happen to, and their views toward life and death both, I have to say I hope the great cosmic wheel selects me to have one.

Anyhow, take what you're saying a step further. If your conscious mind can skip over 4 hours when it was pharmacologically shut off, then couldn't it work the same way when you die and are reborn? It seems to me that if reincarnation is true, there's no subjective 'waiting period' between existences. Right now the universe is looking at itself with your eyes. Seems to me there'd be no subjective gap between this and the next place and time it's able to look at itself with a different pair of eyes (or other sensory apparatus.  ) because in these intervening eons, there are no eyes to do the looking.


----------



## frozen diamonds

When you die you do not end, and you never began in the first place. You are Eternal, you are God. We are all One. You have lived in, or rather had control over , many physical incarnations before this one, and you most likely have at least a few to come, maybe many many more. It IS possible to remember these past lives, because many people have before. So anyway when you die you return to the high, etheric spiritual realm of your essence, the part of you which is real and eternal, and after eternity or 49 physical days (according to Tibetan beliefs - this figure might not be accurate, I can't be sure) you come into a fetus and are subsequently Reborn. Only when you become fully conscious of this process and of yourself and reality can you escape the cycle of death and rebirth. It is possible to sustain your consciousness even through sleep, completely unbroken but it takes a very long time usually, it is very much work and requires a lot of patience. I have not (yet) achieved this but I hope one day to be able to. However there are definitely people who have achieved this. At this point, once you have become fully conscious of higher existence, what lies beyond death is already a living truth for you in every moment, and therefore when you die you can simply leave your body behind and continue on as soul and spirit totally uninterrupted. At this point you have achieved Eternal Life and Immortality in the spiritual realm, having fully developed your spiritual organs and learned the lesson, "won" the game. This life is but an illusion, just a game, a dance... that being said it is entirely necessary. Death is a necessary part of life. The spiritual world birthed the physical world for this purpose, so that death could plant the seeds of life into the future, or something like that.


----------



## footscrazy

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> I also envy people who've had a near death experience, though I've not had the guts to say so. I've had some experiences that were borderline mystical or visionary. I've even had a couple strange experiences that were well within the realm of paranormal. But having read so much about NDEs, and the way they profoundly affect the people they happen to, and their views toward life and death both, I have to say I hope the great cosmic wheel selects me to have one.
> 
> Anyhow, take what you're saying a step further. If your conscious mind can skip over 4 hours when it was pharmacologically shut off, then couldn't it work the same way when you die and are reborn? It seems to me that if reincarnation is true, there's no subjective 'waiting period' between existences. Right now the universe is looking at itself with your eyes. Seems to me there'd be no subjective gap between this and the next place and time it's able to look at itself with a different pair of eyes (or other sensory apparatus.  ) because in these intervening eons, there are no eyes to do the looking.



But if there is no 'connection' between this life and the next - how is it really 'you' that is being reicarnated? Wouldn't it just be another consciousness being born? It seems to me that if once you die you are reincarnated but you have no memory of any previous lives, it's the same as saying that when you die that's it, you're gone forever.


----------



## retired_chemist

I don't adhere to the concept of reincarnation.

If a kitten survives long enough to be rescued and lives, it is still a cat.  I have one.  It's genetic blueprint contains more than enough instructions. what some would call "instinct" for it to develop without a parent to guide it.

We don't think much of people and "instinct" except in extremes, but it is the same, just much more complex.

Those strange memories, inexplicable deja vue, etc.  To some it is "a previous life".  To me it is the gentle whispers, the soft tugs of a thousand ancestors who passed me some little piece of their own unique genetic code.  My instinct, my genetic heritage.

I am unique.  Just a fleeting speck of dust in the eye of time, but still my time is mine alone.  I have not lived before, and I will not live again in this sphere of existence, not as a bug, not as a person, not as anything.

I am me.  There is not another.


----------



## frozen diamonds

I see what you are saying. I would agree in some respects, in that I would say it is possible who you are in this life is different from who you are in any other life, but something remains which is essential and eternal. You are a collection of the spirits/energies of your heritage, of your environment, etc. "God" speaks through all of us, we are simply expressions of this force, which is the only being in the universe, but we are still unique, as are all snowflakes unique yet all made of snow, and just as they will melt and go back into the clouds to fall as snowflakes again - once again uniquely their own, distinctly different from all previous and future forms, and so the cycle continues. Just my beliefs, not 100% clear to me yet, obviously  but then again what sane person is ever 100% sure?


----------



## Cloudy

Ultimate freedom and nothing.


----------



## dragonslayer428

Part of me thinks that you just stop existing, but part of me believes (and hopes) that we become a spirit watching down on our loved one's lives.


----------



## bagochina

Once your body passes I believe you go into a limbo [purgatory] where you are conditioned to being in a new realm.  Each soul is unique yet all the same.  From there one is orientated into different levels of spiritual perception depending on how you conducted your life and what goals? were set to achieve in that specific body or lifeform you are placed into classrooms dependent on your spiritual progress.  In those class rooms you are educated further and prepared for rebirth.

I believe you choose the body or living object you are to be reincarnated into.  This depends on how you conducted yourself in your previous life and by what goals/achievements are set out for your particular soul.  As many have alot to learn and will spend many, many lifetimes trying to balance the same spiritual ideas/concepts in life and after life.  When you have a balance and awareness in both life's you can achieve ultimate nirvana.  Once you achieve nirvana you have the ability to sway the physical world in much greater methods.  Being reincarnated into the physical world as we know it now [or how rather it is percieved] on the planet earth some sort of remembrance begins to occurs.

You cycle thru human life, plant life, animal life, alien life with an ultimate goal of achieving nirvana or Christ like enlightenment.

Its hard to really put it down in words with limited knowledge or ways to describe it but this is what I believe happens with out a doubt in my mind.  I believe its next to impossible to describe the afterlife in an understand able fashion.

Peace,
Seedless


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

footscrazy said:


> But if there is no 'connection' between this life and the next - how is it really 'you' that is being reicarnated? Wouldn't it just be another consciousness being born? It seems to me that if once you die you are reincarnated but you have no memory of any previous lives, it's the same as saying that when you die that's it, you're gone forever.



That depends what 'you' fundamentally is.


----------



## oohcow

IN all honesty, I really don't know what happens when you die...

I've had a death experience before when i overdosed and was in a coma cause they shocked me back... I experienced something of purgatory... But i have no clue.. it was just all so quick and frightening and then i got sent back for a 2nd chance at life.

I experienced this when i died... so i kinda know (nobody has to believe me) that something is there after you die... I've talked to strange entities on the "other side" (I don't think im really crazy, i dont have any known mental illness)

But yeah... I conduct my life a lot more civilized and nicer now... I've become a "better" person.... through the experience....im so different now.

I think there's alot of stuff that happens after you die... that Death is only the BEGINNING.... Life that we live now.. is kinda like a pre-qual or some shit.. But I do believe that what you do here while you are in your physical form ultimately affects your story in the next realm.

Its crazy guys.... if nothing, i kicked a heavy ass dope habit cause of the experience..... but it changed my life.

that's cool capstone... i always wanted to meet other people with a similar experience man...

Your words describe it beautifully... Mine are elementary in comparison... I might steal your description for anyone who asks... I was just so overwhelmed with everything you know... dieing and shit... LOL...


----------



## beamers

nothing happens, why should it? There was nothing before.

Have you ever been unconscious due to injury or anaesthetic? What did you experience?


----------



## Philoscybin

I technically have been dead for less than a minute before being revived due to an intentional "speedball" overdose. I personally experienced nothing more than fading out of consciousness. Although, my Father was in a coma for about 3.5 months and had flat lined three times during that period and claims to have had NDEs that you mostly read about (a white light, euphoria, feeling a divine presence, etc.). However, nobody knows if these experiences actually took place while he had flat lined or were just regular brain activity while he was comatose. Either way, he's convinced it was a sign and went from an agnostic to a new-age hocus-pocus lunatic.

I believe our body permanently shuts down, including our mind or consciousness (or spirit- metaphysically speaking) and we physically deteriorate into other forms of matter (whether or not it becomes a part of or blossoms other life does not indicate an afterlife for us). I don't hold any pantheistic view in which our consciousness happens to meld back into some "universal consciousness", simply based on the fact that consciousness cannot exist without material reality. It makes no sense as to why our sense of self is deceiving. I don't see how it's possible for me to be me while simultaneously I am not me and the universe is me. To say that you have no self, your self must say it, and the fact that your self says it means that it is impossible for there not to be a self. 

But to each his own.


----------



## blahman8000

Hopefully I'll be able to haunt some of the pricks I've met in my life.

But probably nothing, because experience occurs in the brain. You know, that thing that dies along with the rest of your shit. I think that the "energy" that makes you alive, that being your consciousness/self-awareness, remains in existence, because energy is exchanged amongst all things in the world all the time. Maybe it'll float over to the lamp next to your deathbed.


----------



## ColtDan

beamers said:


> nothing happens, why should it? There was nothing before.




this.


----------



## Ol' Morfy

Some people use the "Light Bulb" analogy (light is on--you're alive, light is off--you're dead).

That isn't too far off from my POV, but, instead of one light bulb, there are several:

A- Those that burn-out first represent those tissues/organs that are most dependent on oxygen (brain, myocardium)--think 100-W bulbs.

B- Those that burn-out last represent those tissues that aren't so dependent on oxygen (smooth muscle cells of the gut), think 15-W bulbs.

The process of dying is not exactly instantaneous (unless cause of death is something like evaporation by nuclear fission/fusion).  The brain & the heart go first, then other tissues.  Sometimes a person's small intestine keep performing peristalsis for HOURS after "death."

The lightbulb / light-switch analogy isn't a bad one, it just covers the 2-6 hours between brain/heart death and the death of the last cell in a person's body.

Without brain function, I doubt consciousness is maintained.  Not a super happy thought, but there is strength in knowing the truth.

O M


----------



## blahman8000

I agree with Ol' Morfy. Consciousness is impossible without a brain. It's a very simple fact. When the brain dies, there is no consciousness, therefore no awareness of the self, and therefore no actual life besides leftover energy fueling the last few organs before Papa Death completes his stroke. So consciousness is limited to life within a body. Body dies, and it's all over. Get used to that idea, and do us all a favor and get cremated so there won't be another useless carcass beneath some tombstone taking up space where there could be low-cost housing or a cheap mom-and-pop food market.

Speaking of death, check out this 1-2 minute audio blog.


----------



## bagochina

I have a hard time believing that consciousness equals having a brain because the body came long after our original creation in the image and likeness of the Universal Creator [Christ consciousness or universal consciousness].  So its not hard to think that the same holds true after the body is no more.

I have never been able to understand how others believe that once you are dead that's it.  It might seem logical in the scientific sense but to think that science can possibly begin to explain inherent knowledge of the soul I just cant not understand that.

Not knocking anybody just typing...

Peace,
Seedless


----------



## oohcow

QFT ^!

Seirously sorry that i can't believe in your "truths" im not asking you to believe in mine... however

What you guys believe makes me sad


----------



## blahman8000

bagochina said:


> I have a hard time believing that consciousness equals having a brain because the body came long after our original creation in the image and likeness of the Universal Creator [Christ consciousness or universal consciousness].  So its not hard to think that the same holds true after the body is no more.
> 
> I have never been able to understand how others believe that once you are dead that's it.  It might seem logical in the scientific sense but to think that science can possibly begin to explain inherent knowledge of the soul I just cant not understand that.
> 
> Not knocking anybody just typing...
> 
> Peace,
> Seedless





I'm having trouble understanding what you mean in your first paragraph. Are you just assuming that we were created in the image and likeness of something? And wouldn't this be anthropomorphizing "god"? Because this is unreasonable, not just by science but by logic. Sorry if I've misunderstood.

As for the second paragraph, I personally don't "believe" anything in regards to spirituality or religion, because I don't have faith. Faith is illogical by definition, as it doesn't rely on logic in any way. Therefore, I have no beliefs, I only have knowledge, suspicions, and doubts. From the information that we are given, there is every reason to believe that no being could experience anything beyond the point when the brain dies. All of science points to this fact, and there is no knowledge that we have gained for one to assume otherwise.

You say that science cannot begin to explain the soul, but I'm not sure what you mean by the "soul." And I'm not sure why you think that there is such a thing as a soul. If you mean our consciousness, then look into quantum physics. Because many things that were once considered "spiritual" or involving the "soul" are now being considered physics. Once something is explained scientifically, it is no longer necessary to explain it with faith-based, meaningless rhetoric. And once something is explained scientifically that is in opposition to what faithful people _assume_, then they'll either change their mind or deny it with, again, faith-based rhetoric.

Again, I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, you SHOULD believe what you want. But I'm trying to get you, bagochina, to understand why certain people deny the possibility of any afterlife. Oohcow, nobody is trying to make you sad, and I'm sorry if I've offended you with this post. Hell, I wouldn't mind an afterlife, but I see the need to be academically correct with _knowledge_, and reasonable with my _assumptions_. Anyway, I'm interested in further explanation of your beliefs if you'd like to explain.


----------



## Philoscybin

The soul and spirit are simply metaphysical concepts to explain being and consciousness. It's a complete lapse in reason to believe in any being or consciousness able to exist beyond the physical world. Bagochina, you seem to be saying that science is wrong having disproved this possibility and suggest an illogical and vague mystical concept, probably out of wishful thinking. The universe is not benevolant or necessarily adherent to your likings.


----------



## Ol' Morfy

Like other hot issues (abortion, polly-ticks, etc...) it would be very rare to actually change a persons point of view--espeically in any major way.

But forcing one's opinion on another is just down-right wrong.  In the areas where right & wrong are difficult to define, one can only state their beliefs as best as possible, and try to understand other's POV.

I do NOT blame, or feel superior to those who have a "mystical" or supernatural belief system that support extra-corporeal consicousness/ a soul/ spirit, I sometimes wish I could believe in that too.

It would make the time remaining here alive a little more bearable.

O M


----------



## retired_chemist

Philoscybin said:


> The soul and spirit are simply metaphysical concepts to explain being and consciousness. It's a complete lapse in reason to believe in any being or consciousness able to exist beyond the physical world. Bagochina, you seem to be saying *that science is wrong having disproved this possibility* and suggest an illogical and vague mystical concept, probably out of wishful thinking. The universe is not benevolant or necessarily adherent to your likings.



When did that happen?  I would love to read about the scientific disproof of the soul.

And how can science ever possibly prove or disprove that anything does or does not exist beyond the physical world.  That would be utterly, well unscientific.


----------



## B9

Forgotten


----------



## karruters

i believe we reincarnate.

to quote my blog:

"It can't all end after this, it just can't. Why would God only give you one single stay on this beautiful planet to decide your fate for an eternity? Why would God have created such an imperfect system?

If one has experienced enough synchronicity in one's life, one can logically deduce past life karma. The fact that the synchronicity community seems to believe in reincarnation pretty much speaks for itself.

I believe the human soul is specifically designed for the human nervous system, and so you will only ever reincarnate as human. I will not be able to tell you how until I explain a few things about the human nervous system. "


----------



## retired_chemist

If you say it can't all end after this, does that imply you have to be reincarnated on this earth, in this plane of existence?  

I believe that life is a struggle.  It makes more sense to me that the imperfection is to help us learn something to face the next struggle whatever that may be.


----------



## karruters

i believe there is another plane of existence we can reincarnate to, but this is where my opinions become difficult to prove...


----------



## B9

You can't remember it can you ?


----------



## karruters

haha no haha shut up.

it's just where my opinions happen to get off the wall and i cannot prove them.

...yet.


----------



## B9

See like I said - forgotton 

I'll try & go away now


----------



## Philoscybin

retired_chemist said:


> When did that happen?  I would love to read about the scientific disproof of the soul.
> 
> And how can science ever possibly prove or disprove that anything does or does not exist beyond the physical world.  That would be utterly, well unscientific.



1. I'd say it happened as far back as around 1200 BC, during the time of the Epicurean physicists. 

Simply put: The soul, our conscious selves, is atomically constituted as the brain and nervous system, thus corporeal. Like every atomic compound it slowly fades into dissolution and disperses. Given that our conscious selves cannot survive death, once the body dies, there isn't anything to keep the soul together. 

2. The physical world is proof in itself. If something exists, it is comprised of physical elements and laws, and vice-versa. I'd write more but I just took a bunch of clonazepam and flurazepam..


----------



## retired_chemist

Philoscybin said:


> 1. I'd say it happened as far back as around 1200 BC, during the time of the Epicurean physicists.
> 
> Simply put: The soul, our conscious selves, is atomically constituted as the brain and nervous system, thus corporeal. Like every atomic compound it slowly fades into dissolution and disperses. Given that our conscious selves cannot survive death, once the body dies, there isn't anything to keep the soul together.
> 
> 2. The physical world is proof in itself. If something exists, it is comprised of physical elements and laws, and vice-versa. I'd write more but I just took a bunch of clonazepam and flurazepam..



1.  You don't question the assumption that the soul is necessarily the same as the conscious which is necessarily the same as essentially a series of biologically generated electrical impulses.

Convenient to the belief that there effectively is no "abstract" concept of the soul beyond the brain and nervous system, but still nothing more than a school of thought and by no means "scientific proof".

For the record, what you have written is essentially lifted almost verbatim from common modern reductions of schools of thought - in this case the *philosophy* you describe is correctly attributable in the phrases you have used to Lucretius.  And check your dates, although maybe you meant to type in 200 BC.

1200 BC in Greek civilization would have been about at the end of the reign of the at best semi-legendary Theseus.  

As long as we are in 1200 BC, Plutarch gives an interesting comparison of Theseus versus Romulus in his "Lives" and by his own admission:

"As geographers, Sosius, crowd into the edges of their maps parts of the world which they do not know about, adding notes in the margin to the effect, that beyond this lies nothing but the sandy deserts full of wild beasts, unapproachable bogs, Scythian ice, or a frozen sea, so in this work of mine, in which I have compared the lives of the greatest men with one another, after passing through those periods which probable reasoning can reach to and real history find a footing in, I might very well say of those that are farther off: "Beyond this there is nothing but prodigies and fictions, the only inhabitants are the poets and inventors of fables; there is no credit, or certainty any farther."

Advanced ideas about atomic theory are not likely to survive down through the ages when a culture is still essentially describing the mythos of it's own origins.    


2.  The physical world is proof of absolutely nothing other than the existence of the physical world.  In fact there are many theories about multiverse rather than universe.  Science and it's laws can only be applied to our universe.  We can reasonably assume that our universe is expanding into a vacuum.  That is not by any means the same as saying our universe is expanding into "absolute nothingness" and what lies beyond our universe is outside the realm of any sort of scientific determination one way or another.

I am sorry but all you are presenting is a particular belief system you yourself have as accepted as fact, no better and no worse than anyone else's belief system, except you also  choose to dress it in what you believe to be "science" but is not, and therefore as "fact" when it is not (in terms if something is either factual or it is not factual.  What you present is possibly true, just as possibly not true.  Since it cannot be presented as fact, it must necessarily be not factual).

Much like Plutarch's geographers, something I see very often when people offer "scientific proof" on Bluelight about philosophy and spirtuality, is they are taking a "map" of what they believe to be scientific knowledge, and merely use the edges to scribble in notes like "Ignorant superstition" or "Nothing" or "Infinity" and think that science has somehow proven that to be the case.  The reality is often that is nothing more than a convenience to prevent having to accept the truth that the map is still limited and beyond it's edges, the map can offer no real guidance.  

In this case, where the map ends at Life and Death, we can all scribble in something - reincarnation, resurrection to the kingdom of Heaven, "nothing".  You are sure science proves "nothing".  It has not even come close.  Whatever any of us put in those margins, sorry,  your notations are no more convincing than any other cartographer of the human experience.  

The only absolute is "There is no credit, or certainty any farther".


----------



## B9

^ I object to being classified as "all" you would find if you had read my concise post that I do not fit that description.


----------



## M Brace

The reasoning mind seems to be a useful, but limited facet of our consciousness.  It seems to be useful for discovering, remembering, and working with reproducible sequences.  for example, reason helps you learn that the sequence of taking out the garbage concludes with a happy wife, pretty much every time.  using this circuit alone to make spiritual inquiries, whatever the sentiment, seems to lead to suffering.  

I have had an experience with psilocybin that suggested to me that life is just one flavor of existence, and that  awareness is present everywhere.  What I consider to be *my* awareness I saw as an eddy in the totality of awareness, turning inward, grasping at it's intangible self.  Reason is the wrong tool for exploring such territory.

for anyone who believes that consciousness is localized to the brain, and is interested in challenging that belief....DMT.

I don't know what to expect from death.  Survival and annihilation both have their pros and cons.  I suspect that neither will seem accurate in the bardo.


----------



## B9

> reason helps you learn that the sequence of taking out the garbage concludes with a happy wife,




Typo - or am i just blisfully ignorant of something ?


----------



## DrugOmen

retired_chemist said:


> 1.  You don't question the assumption that the soul is necessarily the same as the conscious which is necessarily the same as essentially a series of biologically generated electrical impulses.
> 
> Convenient to the belief that there effectively is no "abstract" concept of the soul beyond the brain and nervous system, but still nothing more than a school of thought and by no means "scientific proof".
> 
> For the record, what you have written is essentially lifted almost verbatim from common modern reductions of schools of thought - in this case the *philosophy* you describe is correctly attributable in the phrases you have used to Lucretius.  And check your dates, although maybe you meant to type in 200 BC.
> 
> 1200 BC in Greek civilization would have been about at the end of the reign of the at best semi-legendary Theseus.
> 
> As long as we are in 1200 BC, Plutarch gives an interesting comparison of Theseus versus Romulus in his "Lives" and by his own admission:
> 
> "As geographers, Sosius, crowd into the edges of their maps parts of the world which they do not know about, adding notes in the margin to the effect, that beyond this lies nothing but the sandy deserts full of wild beasts, unapproachable bogs, Scythian ice, or a frozen sea, so in this work of mine, in which I have compared the lives of the greatest men with one another, after passing through those periods which probable reasoning can reach to and real history find a footing in, I might very well say of those that are farther off: "Beyond this there is nothing but prodigies and fictions, the only inhabitants are the poets and inventors of fables; there is no credit, or certainty any farther."
> 
> Advanced ideas about atomic theory are not likely to survive down through the ages when a culture is still essentially describing the mythos of it's own origins.
> 
> 
> 2.  The physical world is proof of absolutely nothing other than the existence of the physical world.  In fact there are many theories about multiverse rather than universe.  Science and it's laws can only be applied to our universe.  We can reasonably assume that our universe is expanding into a vacuum.  That is not by any means the same as saying our universe is expanding into "absolute nothingness" and what lies beyond our universe is outside the realm of any sort of scientific determination one way or another.
> 
> I am sorry but all you are presenting is a particular belief system you yourself have as accepted as fact, no better and no worse than anyone else's belief system, except you also  choose to dress it in what you believe to be "science" but is not, and therefore as "fact" when it is not (in terms if something is either factual or it is not factual.  What you present is possibly true, just as possibly not true.  Since it cannot be presented as fact, it must necessarily be not factual).
> 
> Much like Plutarch's geographers, something I see very often when people offer "scientific proof" on Bluelight about philosophy and spirtuality, is they are taking a "map" of what they believe to be scientific knowledge, and merely use the edges to scribble in notes like "Ignorant superstition" or "Nothing" or "Infinity" and think that science has somehow proven that to be the case.  The reality is often that is nothing more than a convenience to prevent having to accept the truth that the map is still limited and beyond it's edges, the map can offer no real guidance.
> 
> In this case, where the map ends at Life and Death, we can all scribble in something - reincarnation, resurrection to the kingdom of Heaven, "nothing".  You are sure science proves "nothing".  It has not even come close.  Whatever any of us put in those margins, sorry,  your notations are no more convincing than any other cartographer of the human experience.
> 
> The only absolute is "There is no credit, or certainty any farther".



Im in his boat.


----------



## Ovidiu

you stop masturbating while watching underage teen porn


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Welcome back aboard the good ship pee'n'ess, retired chemist. Good post.


----------



## Philoscybin

> 1.  You don't question the assumption that the soul is necessarily the same as the conscious which is necessarily the same as essentially a series of biologically generated electrical impulses.
> 
> Convenient to the belief that there effectively is no "abstract" concept of the soul beyond the brain and nervous system, but still nothing more than a school of thought and by no means "scientific proof".



I understand there are different connotations to what the soul is, I'm not assuming it is _only_ the same as consciousness, I just don't see the relevance of addressing its other abstract meanings concerning the science of it. If you do, please clarify. As far as proof, science can confirm what has been disproved by philosophy/metaphysics. The soul has a specific nature, and is causally-dependent on a functioning brain. Remove the brain and the soul ceases to exist. Convenient or not, my belief is simply based on logic and lends proof that we are not immortal. 



> 1200 BC in Greek civilization would have been about at the end of the reign of the at best semi-legendary Theseus.



Yeah,... my mistake, I meant 200 BC - I was pretty sedated...



> 2. The physical world is proof of absolutely nothing other than the existence of the physical world. In fact there are many theories about multiverse rather than universe.



Such theories tend to presume a different concept of the "universe" from the more standard definition, which is "all that exists". There can't be more than one instance of "all that exists", for each instance would not encompass the other instances. 

If you're referring to the "universe" as a little bubble of a larger multiverse, that is fine, but then you are just using the words to refer to different concepts. The "multiverse", then, is "all that exists", and "universe" is just our little visible bubble. Of course, until there is evidence of other bubbles, the claim to their existence is arbitrary and can be rejected as such.



> Science and it's laws can only be applied to our universe.



Right. The universe is all that exists, therefore science and its laws apply to all that exists.



> We can reasonably assume that our universe is expanding into a vacuum.



Using what type of reasoning? Deduction from arbitrary principles? Wouldn't this vacuum then be part of all that exists, i.e., the universe? That is not in any way the same as saying our universe is expanding into complete nothingness and what lies beyond our universe is outside the realm of any sort of scientific determination one way or another.



> That is not by any means the same as saying our universe is expanding into "absolute nothingness" and what lies beyond our universe is outside the realm of any sort of scientific determination one way or another.



So being that the universe is defined as all that exists this would mean that the universe is "expanding" into itself- a contradiction.



> The only absolute is "There is no credit, or certainty any farther".



In a sense, you're implication of me blindly following a "map" is just as much of a "convenient truth" for you. You're following the "map" of the agnostic that discredits both you as well as itself. You say there are no absolutes, blanking out the fact you have given an absolute.


----------



## retired_chemist

You still offer no "proof" that "The soul has a specific nature, and is causally-dependent on a functioning brain. "  You also have offered no disproof of any belief otherwise, the assertion you made in your original post.

All you are doing is constraining your definition of soul.  But there is no scientific argument to support your choice of constraints.  There is no scientifically accepted definition of the soul, merely different schools of thought.  That is the realm of Philosophy.

I could simply choose another constraint.  For example, my father died 9 years ago.  His "atomic being" as you would put it is gone.  So according to your constraints his soul is gone.

However, this past Christmas I went to the cemetery.  I put flowers on his grave.  From a physical point of view, thermodynamic work was done.  I would say the cause was simple "I am moved to do this by my father's soul."  You could argue that this is all merely a manifestation of my brain.   I could argue that in the absence of knowledge of who my father was, this thermodynamic work would never have occurred.

Science is incapable of proving either of our assumptions is correct or incorrect.  Therefore science is equally incapable of disproving my assumption in favor of yours.

We could argue the definition of the Universe.  But if you use the definition of the Universe as being "everything that exists", then you have to also accept that by expanding the definition, you must also accept that "science and it's laws apply to everything that exists" is no longer valid in anything other than abstract terms as well.  The science in this Universe has an empirical basis.  We have certain constants that are defined only within our time-energy-matter space continuum.  If you expand your definition beyond that, there is no requirement that other physical bodies in the total multiverse exhibit the same physical behavior.

We could argue that "the laws of science still apply"  but the framework of science has now become so abstract, that you might as well include infinite possibilities, and so why not "the soul" as well. 

The problem is not that I refuse to recognize any absolutes.  The speed of light, atomic masses etc, these are all quantities which are known with absolute certainty in our physical existence.  The problem is you are trying to expand science to explain things that are simply outside the realm of scientific explanation, as it exists in our Universe.  So you really cannot have both.  In this case there is in fact a logical constraint on science.  Science is the science of our physical sphere of existence - our time space matter energy continuum - that is the only science we have.  And there are questions and concepts that our science simply cannot address.

We could "define" a Mozart symphony in terms of a specific set of notes in a specific arrangement.  Science cannot adequately explain what motivated Mozart to create this, or what might inspire other musicians to be inspired to play it an infinite number of different ways.  Inspiration, like "soul" is an abstract entity.  Would anyone deny the empirical evidence that humans are capable of an abstract level of creation we try to define by this word "inspiration".  Or that this "inspiration" can perpetuate itself far beyond the grave?

Why would we view the soul any differently?


----------



## Philoscybin

Go ahead and describe or define your concept of a "soul", obviously keeping in mind for what is necessary for a properly formed concept.


----------



## retired_chemist

I cannot define or describe my concept of the "soul".    I certainly cannot define or describe anyone else's view of the soul, other than to recognize that we have a certain abstract construction that people often use in a similar way that leads us to a common word.

I can define and describe mathematical constructs.  I can define chemical reactions and thermodynamic relationships.  Etc etc.

I do not pretend to be able to prove or disprove or even define such things.   I cannot define "love" either, although I could make some clear collections of certain aspects of "love", many would in fact be inherently self-contradictory.

Concepts like "love" and "soul" are not rational.  They are not scientific.  That does not disprove their existence.  I am still waiting for *you* to offer that up.


----------



## Philoscybin

> Science is incapable of proving either of our assumptions is correct or incorrect.  Therefore science is equally incapable of disproving my assumption in favor of yours.



Science is not for defining words. There's also no scientifically accepted definition of the word "the". Or "word" itself.



> There is no scientifically accepted definition of the soul, merely different schools of thought. That is the realm of Philosophy.



Philosophy is the realm of establishing how concepts are integrated and how terms are defined. It's not the realm of defining every single term in existence though.

One thing philosophy can tell us, for sure, is that terms must be defined before they are used, and the concepts they denote must be correctly integrated. So, please, define your terms. What do you mean by soul, and which group of existents does the term denote?


----------



## retired_chemist

Sure, science has no need to define "the".  It is an article.  There are not even any articles in the Russian language, that is why they often seem to use "a" and "the" arbitrarily.

Why comment on that and not my thermodynamic argument?   I am not saying I know there is life after death, or that there is not life after death.  I cannot know the answer to that question from either science or philosophy.

You are asking me for definitions and yet I am the one saying that you have constrained your argument to suit only your definition.  If you want to say that the biological system of neurological thought and action and reaction ceases to function after death, I have no argument with that.

What you have in fact said is:

"It's a complete lapse in reason to believe in* any being or consciousness able to exist beyond the physical world. Bagochina, you seem to be saying that science is wrong having disproved this possibility.*"

You state that science has disproven the existence of any being or consciousness able to exist beyond the physical world.

I am asking you for that scientific proof.  It is a simple request.


----------



## capstone

I fully believe in the concept of reincarnation. And have a humble theory of why people don't remember their past lives. Okay, say when your body dies, your soul simply transforms into a new incarnation to experience and learn from reality. Over all these lives, we forget we are infinite consciousness, manifesting ourselves over and over again. So each time we come back into this planetary reality, we lose more and more of our higher memories. Just keep coming back to a ever smaller box of reality to experience. 

Then, there's all the "junk" DNA that could be activated in everyone...


----------



## Philoscybin

The physicality of the soul or a consciousness ceases to function upon its body's physical demise. If you look at a dead brain, there simply remains no mental activity. The mind, consciousness, the soul are all actions of an existent- a man's brain/body. Actions can't exist separate from existents. Can something I defined as corporeal be disproved to exist without a body? Yes, however no science is necessary, only the application of the complex formula, "a corporeal thing is corporeal". So I wasn't necessarily correct to imply that science can fully prove such a thing. My arrow has been straightened. However, I believe science heavily suggests man's immortality within this constraint just out of pure reason.


----------



## oohcow

people think to seem science can prove/disprove something beyond on understanding such as teh universe...

Is tehre any proof that the laws of physics even apply outside of our galaxy?

People think that because shit applies on this little tiny ass pos planet that is essentially a grain of sand in the grand scheme of things

 is... the knowledge....of the entire...university......

I wont post any more than this thread...

But science only applies to us... HERE on EARTH...

Who knows if we reincarnate as aliens and shit...

I don't know.. but i bleive that there is somethinb eyond death... fuck ..of course you can't call it conciousness because conciousness defined by human beings means being aware of yourself.. IN THE SENSE YOU ARE ALIVE....

The word probably doesn't even exist in the next lifetime..

peace and love yall.


----------



## Philoscybin

The laws of physics have in a sense proven that there is more outside of our galaxy. Science doesn't only apply to us on Earth.


----------



## romsoccer12

science is the reason we are shackled in this giant hologram.  step out of the world past created and step into the world your spirit creates!


----------



## Psychedelic Gleam

oohcow said:


> people think to seem science can prove/disprove something beyond on understanding such as teh universe...
> 
> Is tehre any proof that the laws of physics even apply outside of our galaxy?
> 
> People think that because shit applies on this little tiny ass pos planet that is essentially a grain of sand in the grand scheme of things
> 
> is... the knowledge....of the entire...university......
> 
> I wont post any more than this thread...
> 
> But science only applies to us... HERE on EARTH...
> 
> Who knows if we reincarnate as aliens and shit...
> 
> I don't know.. but i bleive that there is somethinb eyond death... fuck ..of course you can't call it conciousness because conciousness defined by human beings means being aware of yourself.. IN THE SENSE YOU ARE ALIVE....
> 
> The word probably doesn't even exist in the next lifetime..
> 
> peace and love yall.



Sorry but plenty of science transcends the "HERE on EARTH" as scientists are able to peer into the past through telescopes and discover details about the birth of our universe, etc, etc... and it is pretty well accepted knowledge that the laws of physics extend beyond the atmosphere of earth.  Science cannot be expected to disprove anything, nor does it claim to disprove the existence of the soul.  Rather, using a limited set of tools, mediated by consciousness, it attempts to establish an "objective" means of interacting and examining the world which surrounds us.


----------



## Portillo

oohcow said:


> people think to seem science can prove/disprove something beyond on understanding such as teh universe...
> 
> Is tehre any proof that the laws of physics even apply outside of our galaxy?
> 
> People think that because shit applies on this little tiny ass pos planet that is essentially a grain of sand in the grand scheme of things
> 
> is... the knowledge....of the entire...university......
> 
> But science only applies to us... HERE on EARTH...
> 
> Who knows if we reincarnate as aliens and shit...
> 
> I don't know.. but i bleive that there is somethinb eyond death... fuck ..of course you can't call it conciousness because conciousness defined by human beings means being aware of yourself.. IN THE SENSE YOU ARE ALIVE....
> 
> The word probably doesn't even exist in the next lifetime..



Finally. Someone explains it in ways i can understand.


----------



## Nexus6

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Anyhow, take what you're saying a step further. If your conscious mind can skip over 4 hours when it was pharmacologically shut off, then couldn't it work the same way when you die and are reborn? It seems to me that if reincarnation is true, there's no subjective 'waiting period' between existences. Right now the universe is looking at itself with your eyes. Seems to me there'd be no subjective gap between this and the next place and time it's able to look at itself with a different pair of eyes (or other sensory apparatus.  ) because in these intervening eons, there are no eyes to do the looking.



I completely agree with that logic. I've always wondered what the probability was that I should end up behind this pair of eyes, and given a universe that is practically infinite I expect that whatever forces aligned to put me here will do so again. I don't see any way that memories could be transferred from one instance to another though, so I don't really believe that we can remember our "past lives". I think we just move back and forth between these micro consciousnesses and a superc-onscious state depending on where the electricity is flowing.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

^ Yeah I don't think memories or knowledge transfer. In a way the new you won't be... well... you. This is what Buddhist philosophers mean when about rebirth when they make the analogy of a series of blocks stacked upon one another. They are not connected, the way they would be if there were a string passing through the center of all of them. But they are held together by a basic property of existence. (In the case of the blocks, gravity and inertia. In the case of self-aware mind, the probability with which this phenomenon likely recurs in an infinite and everlasting universe.)

But in any case, I don't think you'll need your memories or knowledge from this existence when you pass on, any more than those coins and star points will be of value when you turn off Super Mario.


----------



## oohcow

Psychedelic Gleam said:


> Sorry but plenty of science transcends the "HERE on EARTH" as scientists are able to peer into the past through telescopes and discover details about the birth of our universe, etc, etc... and it is pretty well accepted knowledge that the laws of physics extend beyond the atmosphere of earth.  Science cannot be expected to disprove anything, nor does it claim to disprove the existence of the soul.  Rather, using a limited set of tools, mediated by consciousness, it attempts to establish an "objective" means of interacting and examining the world which surrounds us.




have you seen hubbles furthest view into space?

youtube it... and learn that we know nothing. we are NOTHING in the universe and people seem to think the universe is alot smaller than it really is...

Science has not proven shit no offense... cause we DON"T EVEN KNOW WHATS OUT THERE.... 

like yeah you can say they discover details about the birth of our universe... DETAILS... how it happened? WHO THE FUCK KNOWS its all theories anyway.

I dunno im not arguing the validity of science... its really interesting... and i believe it too.. I just believe that science and creationism can go hand in hand that humans are like forced to believe one or another...

JUST my .02 cents, we can agree to disagree if anything...


----------



## oohcow

Philoscybin said:


> The laws of physics have in a sense proven that there is more outside of our galaxy. Science doesn't only apply to us on Earth.



gravity doesn't exist in space...

only within atmostpheres and the laws of gravity even on the moon are differnet from ours on earth

that's not even thinking about the millions of light years of space we havn't even traveled to.....

So no i don't believe science can tell us SHIT about other things casue we simply DON"T UNDERSTAND... 

Humans always think they know everything... when in reality... we are LESS than a speck of sand on a beach (comparing the earth to hte universe) 

in fact, we don't even really KNOW if we are a speck of sand... we don't know SHIT and thats why im trying to say about science... yeah we know some shit.. but in in terms of after death...

IMO science cannot be applied to the "after death" scenario.


----------



## MissBehavin'_416

I think people here possibly have a too optimistic view on life (afterlife that is). Why can't this be the only chance at life we've been given? If I thought I had a few more lives co
ing after this one, I probably wouldn't get so worked up about things not going as I planned or just   Things in general. 
I'm eager to see more opinions on this topic.


----------



## oohcow

^

you seem to think that we think life after this one is the same.. obviously its not LIFE its the afterlife... nobody said it would be the same or it would exist... and more people here have a TOO PESSIMISTIC view on life IMO. 

And yeah, i do believe that my look on life is different than those who believe in no afterlife.... 

Why do you think people have found inner peace with religion and such? because of the belief that death is only the beginning.


----------



## Mjäll

When you die there comes a solemn calm.

All your will shall perish and join the ruthless and merciful stream of life.


----------



## Philoscybin

> gravity doesn't exist in space...



What do you mean "gravity doesn't exist in space"? What about the gravitational pull from stars that keep planets in orbit, applying structural alignment to the existence of galaxies? What about dark matter, neutron stars, and black holes? 



> only within atmostpheres and the laws of gravity even on the moon are differnet from ours on earth



This is due to the variances of spatial relations from the sun or other stars, as proven by _science_. 



> that's not even thinking about the millions of light years of space we havn't even traveled to.....



Yes, which you wouldn't even be aware of, let alone mentioning its existence if it weren't for _science_.



> So no i don't believe science can tell us SHIT about other things casue we simply DON"T UNDERSTAND...



There are countless things we didn't understand in the past, such as fire, precipitation, subatomic particles, which science has eventually provided us with the reasoning around them. Who's to say science will never help us understand what is seemingly unknowable today. Just look at the amazing scientific advances we've made just within this past century in terms of physics (Einstein), anthropology, technology (space travel, computers, etc.), biology, chemistry, medicine, etc. What do you think got us here, Shamanism?





> Humans always think they know everything... when in reality... we are LESS than a speck of sand on a beach (comparing the earth to hte universe)



I don't think the majority of humans are even aware of their actual mental capacity, let alone claim to know everything. They certainly don't hold on to science as their means of knowledge anyhow, they've left that up to religion.


----------



## Wave Jumper

When you die things will be like before you were born. You remember what that was like?


----------



## romsoccer12

*There are countless things we didn't understand in the past, such as fire, precipitation, subatomic particles, which science has eventually provided us with the reasoning around them. Who's to say science will never help us understand what is seemingly unknowable today. Just look at the amazing scientific advances we've made just within this past century in terms of physics (Einstein), anthropology, technology (space travel, computers, etc.), biology, chemistry, medicine, etc. What do you think got us here, Shamanism?*

it seems like to me your happy about the world that we live in now... to me our world is horrible.. . stop thinking so scientific, there is more to life than facts.  and yes there are scientific explanations of afterlife, im reading about it right now in DMT The Spirit Molecule


----------



## L2R

when you die, if you haven't beaten the boss, you have to do the stage again


----------



## Philoscybin

I wasn't implying I like our current status of the world- I agree it's pretty messed up.


----------



## retired_chemist

But you probably do believe "religion" is a major problem right?

Do you really think the typical person does not give a shit about the planet because "God will take care of it?"  No they just want as much cheap shit from Walmart as they can possibly buy.

Or that we don't give a shit about other people because "god will take care of them"?  See above.  We just don't give a shit.  Period.

Or that the major wars are in fact religious struggles?  Or just power struggles that are occasionally also rationalized and aligned along religious orientation?

Or that religion is somehow the cause of mass global suffering?  Our technology is in fact what enables us to extend our ability to create suffering from a local scale to a global scale.

Once you fix the "religion problem" any ideas about what you will do about human nature itself.   A day after the Haiti earthquake internet sites are already setting up charitable aid scams.  Do you really think the big problme in the world today is fundamentally linked to religion?

Etc.  Etc.  I see the problems of the world as the result of having advanced our technology and reach to a global scale without having advanced our society and humanity.

I see a lot of people who basically proselytize science.  As a faith.  They have identified religion as the culprit and yet accept on faith - belief without evidence - that a new "belief system" based on science is the solution.  I am skeptical.


----------



## Philoscybin

> But you probably do believe "religion" is a major problem right?



Yeah I do think it is one of the most problematic and unnecessary attributes within mankind.



> Do you really think the typical person does not give a shit about the planet because "God will take care of it?"  No they just want as much cheap shit from Walmart as they can possibly buy.



I never said the typical person doesn't care about the planet. Most people just lack knowledge. I don't see why saving money on products to boost our economy is that much of a detriment.



> Or that religion is somehow the cause of mass global suffering?  Our technology is in fact what enables us to extend our ability to create suffering from a local scale to a global scale.



Technology, like many things, can be coerced and used as a tool to cause personal harm, mainly because people are so diluted with religious and political propaganda. But the primary intent of technology and its advancements is to better serve mankind- the vast majority has just failed to realize how.



> Etc.  Etc.  I see the problems of the world as the result of having advanced our technology and reach to a global scale without having advanced our society and humanity.



I agree. Although I think we would greatly differ on what exactly needs to change.


----------



## bagochina

> religion is an unnecessary attribute within mankind.



Wow...  I dont even know what to say to that.  I dont subscribe to a particular religion per say but the hope, warm feelings, and calming I get from prayer/meditation is one of the most necessary staples of my life.  I do agree religion can be very problematic but when the tides shift, religion will be one of the biggest solutions for troubled times.

Peace,
Seedless


----------



## Portillo

oohcow said:


> Death is only the beginning.



Agreed.


----------



## frozen diamonds

It really frustrates me when people accept physical reality as the be-all end-all of existence. Just because chemical reactions take place in your body brain which keep it alive does not mean that you are your body or these chemical reactions. One thing science has never explained is consciousness itself, the origin of awareness and thought. What makes one think these things do originate in the brain/body? To me, this seems entirely illogical. Which is another thing to note, you cannot prove anything simply on the basis of logic or reason - one thing I've learned in my life is that there are many different kinds of logic and also even the most delusional things can be "proven" with some form of logical or rational thinking. Back to the point at hand, however, it confuses me how so many people seem to think your thoughts are chemical reactions in your brain. Just because there are activities in your brain which occur when you think does not mean that your thoughts are these activities. This is a concept which seems fairly obvious to me. Clearly physical matter is not thought. I mean hell - you're on the internet right now, and that can't be physically measured. I mean you can measure the bandwith it operates on, etc., but this information right here which we are all reading has absolutely NO physical basis. We are simply accessing it. Which is what I would argue our brain does; not create thought or experience but rather simply allows the physical body to access it. It is like a router between planes, connecting the realms spirit to material reality. Which brings up another way in which science is limited - by what our bodies can sense. Bees can see UV light and plenty of animals sense the magnetic fields of the Earth - who is to say that far more information exists at every moment which we simply have no means of measuring? Just because we have tools on our bodies for (at least) five senses does not mean these are the only stimuli/phenomena which exist. 

Hopefully I've provided something interesting for everyone to think about... peace and love, in life and death.


----------



## romsoccer12

your conscious made your brain, not your brain made your conscious


----------



## Philoscybin

romsoccer12 said:


> your conscious made your brain, not your brain made your conscious



???


----------



## Jerry Atrick

I have not read this thread, but I will say one thing: worm dirt


----------



## romsoccer12

*


Philoscybin said:



			???
		
Click to expand...

*
instead of your brain producing your mind, your mind creates your brain and your surroundings.  its a spiritual theory.  scientists say chemicals in our brain create the thoughts and emotions, but its the mind that creates the brain to produce the chemicals!


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

^ You're on the right track, but just to geek it up a bit, what you're describing is a philosophical position within ontology called Idealism -- the idea that mind is the only thing that definitively exists. It was last a popular position in academic philosophy in late 19th century Britain and Germany, and although it's still quite popular in less high profile philosophical venues, I see no signs of it making a comeback in academic circles anytime soon. This is a shame, because I think taking mind as foundational to reality has some promising practical applications in psychology, medicine, educational theory and praxis, and politics.

But I'm getting way off topic.


----------



## Bardeaux

frozen diamonds said:


> It really frustrates me when people accept physical reality as the be-all end-all of existence. Just because chemical reactions take place in your body brain which keep it alive does not mean that you are your body or these chemical reactions. One thing science has never explained is consciousness itself, the origin of awareness and thought. What makes one think these things do originate in the brain/body? To me, this seems entirely illogical.



Chemicals dictate your mood, emotions, and even sense of reality. My reality may be entirely different from yours because I may have a slightly different chemical make up than you. Just because neuroscience isnt advanced enough to answer the ultimate questions doesnt mean we have a foreign/supernatural intelligence running through our brains. 



frozen diamonds said:


> ... Which brings up another way in which science is limited - by what our bodies can sense. Bees can see UV light and plenty of animals sense the magnetic fields of the Earth - who is to say that far more information exists at every moment which we simply have no means of measuring? Just because we have tools on our bodies for (at least) five senses does not mean these are the only stimuli/phenomena which exist.



 Humans arent limited to our 5 senses, we can measure UV light and magnetism through the technology we have invented. There will always be phenomena that humans can't explain at the moment, but that isnt to say there is no possible way to measure such things or that they will not be explained through science in the future.  

I think man still has much to learn, no one has ever been able to answer these questions with absolute certainty. The more we learn the more questions will be raised but personally I believe there is a scientific answer and explaination for everything even if we havent found it yet.


----------



## MrM

Wave Jumper said:


> When you die things will be like before you were born. You remember what that was like?



I'm with you on this one. 

I think it's interesting that people (generally) are much more frightened or worried by ceasing to exist after they die than they were by the fact they didn't exist before they were conceived. The two would seem to be the same to me.


----------



## Philoscybin

frozen diamonds said:


> It really frustrates me when people accept physical reality as the be-all end-all of existence. Just because chemical reactions take place in your body brain which keep it alive does not mean that you are your body or these chemical reactions. One thing science has never explained is consciousness itself, the origin of awareness and thought. What makes one think these things do originate in the brain/body? To me, this seems entirely illogical. Which is another thing to note, you cannot prove anything simply on the basis of logic or reason - one thing I've learned in my life is that there are many different kinds of logic and also even the most delusional things can be "proven" with some form of logical or rational thinking. Back to the point at hand, however, it confuses me how so many people seem to think your thoughts are chemical reactions in your brain. Just because there are activities in your brain which occur when you think does not mean that your thoughts are these activities. This is a concept which seems fairly obvious to me. Clearly physical matter is not thought. I mean hell - you're on the internet right now, and that can't be physically measured. I mean you can measure the bandwith it operates on, etc., but this information right here which we are all reading has absolutely NO physical basis. We are simply accessing it. Which is what I would argue our brain does; not create thought or experience but rather simply allows the physical body to access it. It is like a router between planes, connecting the realms spirit to material reality. Which brings up another way in which science is limited - by what our bodies can sense. Bees can see UV light and plenty of animals sense the magnetic fields of the Earth - who is to say that far more information exists at every moment which we simply have no means of measuring? Just because we have tools on our bodies for (at least) five senses does not mean these are the only stimuli/phenomena which exist.
> 
> Hopefully I've provided something interesting for everyone to think about... peace and love, in life and death.



Ontologically speaking, matter (aside from energy and the remainder of physics) is the "be-all end-all" of existence. Thoughts, abstractions, concepts and consciousness exist as relationships between material things (your brain and the rest of existence). They exist in your mind in some physical form, but cannot be interacted by/with someone on that basis (except to destroy them by destroying you). Abstractions do not exist in any other way other than man's epistemological method of perceiving that which does exist, and that which exists is concrete. So universals cannot exist as actual physical entities, because they are not physical or metaphysical but epistemological. You seem to be suggesting the alternative, Platonic Idealism, as a more legitimate concept, in that there are perfect forms of abstractions floating around, manifested in some physical concrete form in some other dimension. But universals are not concretes in any dimension. Any system of belief that holds abstractions like morality, objectivity and goodness as tangible metaphysical objects is essentially primitive logic, due to its susceptibility to idol worship. Don't be a caveman .


----------



## dusty___

retired_chemist said:


> Those strange memories, inexplicable deja vue, etc.  To some it is "a previous life".  To me it is the gentle whispers, the soft tugs of a thousand ancestors who passed me some little piece of their own unique genetic code.  My instinct, my genetic heritage.
> 
> I am unique.  Just a fleeting speck of dust in the eye of time, but still my time is mine alone.  I have not lived before, and I will not live again in this sphere of existence, not as a bug, not as a person, not as anything.
> 
> I am me.  There is not another.






blahman8000 said:


> Consciousness is impossible without a brain. It's a very simple fact. When the brain dies, there is no consciousness, therefore no awareness of the self, and therefore no actual life besides leftover energy fueling the last few organs before Papa Death completes his stroke. So consciousness is limited to life within a body. Body dies, and it's all over. Get used to that idea, and do us all a favor and get cremated so there won't be another useless carcass beneath some tombstone taking up space where there could be low-cost housing or a cheap mom-and-pop food market.



iac


----------



## orarev

I think we will probably never find out any of life's mystery's such as this one unless religion is removed for ever then we will have more time on trying to solve these questions instead of hoping that a mystical being brought up by our own fear will determine our fate.


----------



## vegan

> Consciousness is impossible without a brain. It's a very simple fact


i think that people posting in a philosophy and spirituality forum would better keep sentences like "it's a fact" out of their vocabulary or use them more carefully than this instance


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

vegan said:


> i think that people posting in a philosophy and spirituality forum would better keep sentences like "it's a fact" out of their vocabulary or use them more carefully than this instance



I agree.

And no, this is not a proven fact, since the jury is still out on what 'mind' is, and what its relationship to 'brain' is. It's true that there are lot of studies that appear to lend support to the hypothesis that brain creates mind. But this is far from a settled matter, and this conclusion doesn't sit well with many people, because it goes against their common sense and everything they've gone through life assuming. I know I WANT TO BELIEVE that mind =/= brain.


----------



## TouchN' Stuff Blvd

I believe, at present, the answer is unknowable.  Deciding there yes, there is a spirit or , or no, nothing happens but the body disintegrates, is a little arbitrary.  Like others have said, you will only be able to find out once, some time after reading this


----------



## Mr_Fluffykins

your heart stops being, you start to decompose, your true identity is lost forever to never be  found again, 
you only live on threw your accomplishments and your descendants, and the philosophical foot print you left on the universe,

who is to say all those people who accomplished great things on earth for the human race even matter to the universe, the sun will explode one day,

who knows there might be anther big bang, and humans would be wiped off the face of this ?PLANET? universe? solar system, galaxy,

and then more random particles will come together on another ball of cooling magma, and little organisms will evolve, and slowly crawl onto land and evolve and get smarter and build a civilization 

maybe that civilization will be better then ours, and found a way to escape our own fate or world destruction

so we should live in the present and enjoy our life to the fullest possibility doing what we love before its to late and were dead and gone and might actually mean nothing


----------



## PriestTheyCalledHim

capstone said:


> Death is only the Beginning. Your soul becomes cleansed of its burdens, and you get remanifested into that which your reality creates.



A friend of mine who has been in a lot of ceremonies in Peru where Ayahuasca is used in a religious ceremony tells me this.


----------



## brandonerr

you have an extremely vivid dmt trip and then, nothing, everything, existance


----------



## L2R

^the dmt theory doesn't really hold much water in the event of a sudden or instantaneous death. severe head trauma would stop any chemical process before it even occurs.


----------



## nomy

Love the ideas in this thread.

Personally, I take comfort in the Whole. For me, I find it hard to describe my belief for what happens beyond death. But the best way to describe it is that who we are as individual personalities will cease. But everyone and everything that lives is part of Life which I kind of view as a single organism. So each of us is like a leaf off the 'tree of life'. We die, but the tree lives on. The 'tree' will always contain who we were, so in that sense, we live on...Whatever the hell that means.

In a way, this explains things like deja-vu and spiritual visions etc. While we live, we are all 'plugged in' to this tree of life thingy, and so can experience some pretty weird shit under some circumstances. Especially with the use of mind altering substances of course 

Either way, I'm not scared of death, just the method of dying. Death, at worst, will be a very long and peaceful sleep. And that's a nice thought for a partial insomniac.


----------



## RainbowWarrior

When we live we die and death not ends it... (jim morrison )


or just: life goes on - but without your stupid ego, because there are still much better things that life can make up of the things you are made of - evolution ftw 

but as long as we are here, we might as well enjoy it... and stop asking for the sense of life and give our lives the sense we want it to have 

good vibes


----------



## romsoccer12

something that has interested me is cloning
we can produce the EXACT same person, yet they have a completely different soul!
i havent researched it but i find that intersting that an exact replica of brain/genetics yet completely different personalities.  makes me believe a little more that your soul is seperate from your brain


----------



## Ne0

I think energy in us (which could be called as soul) goes back to universe.


----------



## Jabberwocky

*to all the people that think nothing happens after you die...*

how do you explain ghosts and shit?


----------



## Raw Evil

As hallucinations, or wishful thinking combined with paranoia.

http://whathappensafteridie.com (view source for extra credit)


----------



## L2R

i love your use of words, op. you speak to my heart. 



care to elaborate on the word "shit" a little?


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Tickle My Pickle said:


> how do you explain ghosts and shit?



We already have a thread on this, so I'm going to merge yours in with it.


----------



## nautilus

I had a colleague comment that your entire life experience is merged with a collective consciousness that seeks to understand the complexities of human thoughts and interactions. This will lead to the creation of a more evolved and intelligent species. 

....I responded that when you die, you start rotting.

You were born, lived your life and had a few significant people that you impacted, and now you are dead. Dead.


----------



## romsoccer12

kinda off topic but why is your name nautilus?
http://fractalontology.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/nautilus.jpg


----------



## the black sun

justmyluck said:


> I believe you just stop existing. Sure, it's a horrible thing to think about; moving on and leaving all your loved ones behind. But everyone will experience it. *Everyone before us, Everyone after us.* I'm scared of leaving my loved ones here, and the life I live, but I'm not scared for what lies beyond. For one, there's no need to fret over the inevitable. Second, if we were to cease existing; like we were before we were born. It wouldn't be a terrible experience. Just try and think about before you were born; you can't. So my guess is that death and the afterlife will be a similar experience. Or lack there of? If that makes sense.



i love this. it just gives it sucj an easier understanding to how it will actually feel. i dont remember actually being born. so u wont actually remember dying. very simple to understand. love it


----------



## Mind Warp

When I think of this question, I think of the difficulty in understanding identity.  What is it? When is it? When I think about the fact that I didn't exist for eternity, prior to 1982... what time is it really? 

And what was the probability of my Qualia (individual perspective of existence) coming to be?  I did not exist... for eternity.  So was it all just a matter of time, or does time even make sense in this context?  I think all things come full circle and eternity is relative to perspective.

I liken Qualia to a relay race of infinite participants.  I will hand off the baton when I die, and when I do this Qualia is done forever. 

Something else will be.  It will have identity, it will feel, it will move, it will live, it will die.  Then it hands its baton.

Existence is really incredible.


----------



## cutecute

maybe death is the best thing to happen to us and this is just the waiting room. or maybe we go to nothing...

"what's it matter, does it matter
if we're all matter when we're done?"  --Andrew Bird

i don't care when/why/where/how i exist, i couldn't give a fuck if i ever find out, i just i enjoy it


----------



## Draigan

Absolutely nothing happens except for the experience of dying and a change of form. People are under the false illusion that everything that is happening is happening to themselves when in reality it is just the universe experiencing itself. So anytime there is an eye in the universe that sees, thats you seeing. The confusion lies in the fact that u dont see every eyes vision all at the same time. That doesnt change the previous though.

That is why Buddha Eckharte Tolle, Lao Tzu, Allan Watts etc... say that when you achieve enlightenment you never die and you were never born. That is because you are and forever will be/have been now.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Draigan said:


> Absolutely nothing happens except for the experience of dying and a change of form. People are under the false illusion that everything that is happening is happening to themselves when in reality it is just the universe experiencing itself. So anytime there is an eye in the universe that sees, thats you seeing. The confusion lies in the fact that u dont see every eyes vision all at the same time. That doesnt change the previous though.
> 
> That is why Buddha Eckharte Tolle, Lao Tzu, Allan Watts etc... say that when you achieve enlightenment you never die and you were never born. That is because you are and forever will be/have been now.



Yes.


----------



## jewbyrd

Impacto Profundo said:


> exactly four times.



five


----------



## Roger&Me

If you don't believe in reincarnation, I urge you to carefully review your notions regarding the concept of infinity. 

Imagine time and space expanding without bound concentrically. This progression has no bound. All possibilities will be exhausted given an infinite amount of time; and when that occurs, there is still no bound to the progression of time, so the same possibilities begin to play out again. And again. Into infinity. 

Existence is a russian-doll with endless layers.


----------



## L2R

jewbyrd said:


> five



FOUR!

**shove**


----------



## Dresden

*more entertaining than erowid*

A compendium of many, many near death experience 'trip reports' if you will can be found at the following address:  www.nderf.org


----------



## cucarot

no breathing and no moving.


----------



## pf echoes

Sometimes I think that you never really die. Each one of us could have died before we are just continuing in what we think is our life's. Perhaps I died in that car accident that I almost got into a week ago. We all just seem to get out of it but in a different reality we did die, life may just continue on without our knowledge and the event of our death is erased until we die of old age. 

But other then that I believe that we return to our existence as god in whole. God is just life's existance in general. All living things together is god.


----------



## romsoccer12

ive heard many reports of NDE, or people dieing than being saved by doctors and saying they saw heaven, felt at peace, etc.  the first time i read about it i though that this had to prove exsistence after death, but than i realized if your heart stops and your dead, your brain is still working, and who knows what its doing to make you feel peaceful on the most stressfull moment of your life.  does anyone know of a NDE where the brain actually stopped functioning?


----------



## Nossy45

Freedom from physical barriers and ascent


----------



## dusty_dust

capstone said:


> Its like you are a drop of water returning to the ocean of universal consciousness. If one is not ready for this, they essentially go into a battle with their own ego, those torturing demons, until one realizes these are but old friends trying to help relieve one of their material life's burdens. All that which holds a person back from their next manifestation, the next playground teaching tool for the soul, these are the things with which the human condition has been instilled, holding a person back from being an infinite consciousness.
> 
> For some, these burdens are part of the prison that ties them to this planet, and they unknowing return life after life here, ignorant of the fact their soul can remanifest somewhere else. Problem is, its not widely known that everyone is a soul, and their body is the lower vibrational resonance of their manifestation. So death of that lower vibration would simply be the realignment of that expressive energy. Not any end, or rot, only another path on the journey.



Haha capstone nailed it.


----------



## qwe

*prepare to have your mind blown by the next two posts*

here's my detailed answer, with graphs and everythang:  http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=432557

the particles we know of and their behavioral laws cannot lead to qualia/consciousness/"how we see redness" as opposed to how a computer simply recognizes redness because certain switches click.  nothing we know of can "produce" or "maintain" or "influence" *qualia* (qualia is the technical term for experience itself, eg redness or sadness)

so i think there's a lot more to the universe that we have yet to figure out.  one of the things we'll figure out, is what happens upon death

since something besides what we know is maintaining our qualia, i think that whatever maintains it will probably continue to exist after death -- either we will exist in a dimension where our consciousness-producing entities do not need "bodies", or we will inhabit a new body

perhaps once a soul inhabits a creature, it can become "trapped" in the information exchange network until the creature dies

but i don't see our actual experience of the universe as arising from simply an internal observer observing the information exchanges inside one's brain* (see post below)... i don't see qualia arising simply from information flowing in complex patterns.  levers/gears cannot produce consciousness, and there's a paradox with time where "complex patterns" can be put on paper producing consciousnes as well--consciousness that never is born and never dies, does not experience time, and is infinite

so i don't think "information" or "particles" can lead to consciousness itself... there has to be some satisfactory information.  since new physics is thus needed to explain consciousness, this allows for the possibility of inhabiting new creatures upon death (reincarnation) or ascension to another universe

further supporting these ideas is brane theory.  spacetime itself is an object, and particles are sort of like waves travelling through that object.  so space itself is "something", and our universe is a "brane" which is basically a big block of spacetime.  it's a lattice, and it's something, therefore zero point energy exists

branes can collide (producing big bangs? ) and interact.  fyi gravity is the only known force that leaks out of our brane into the bulk and can influence particles that are on other nearby branes or in the bulk

spacetime is something i think we're going to be probing pretty soon.  once we get *past* spacetime, i think we'll be probing what produces qualia.  and that'll make for some pretty interested lab experiments.  and thought experiments


----------



## qwe

> Absolutely nothing happens except for the experience of dying and a change of form. People are under the false illusion that everything that is happening is happening to themselves when in reality it is just the universe experiencing itself. So anytime there is an eye in the universe that sees, thats you seeing. The confusion lies in the fact that u dont see every eyes vision all at the same time. That doesnt change the previous though.
> 
> That is why Buddha Eckharte Tolle, Lao Tzu, Allan Watts etc... say that when you achieve enlightenment you never die and you were never born. That is because you are and forever will be/have been now.


if my soul concept is incorrect and there's no "reincarnation" of sorts,

this would be my second pick.  even if the particles we know can't produce qualia, it still makes sense to say that (see post above)*we are the universe looking at itself.  however, i'd say it's more than just electrons shuffling, and the universe looking at itself just by how their information shuffles

i still say that's a non sequitur.  but if our brains somehow evolved some sort of component made of constituents of reality that we are NOT aware of, or can somehow communicate (send signals and recieve signals, it would need to do both in order to conform to our experience of .. well experience itself) with a component in another brane/dimension where the laws of physics are different and there are particles/things we are not aware of, my idea could still work--

the "soul" would be something we could not say anything about until we learn something about this other brane, or this component made of something we know nothing of.  but upon death, it could die just as our bodies die, if the component no longer recieves the energy necessary to maintain qualia.  then, we WOULD "absorb into one" and i would say strong AI is sorta true, just not with anything we know of

however, the laws of physics concerning such a component in our brain, would be so wildly wierd/crazy/wtf, if we are saying that electron information shuffling cannot lead to qualia, but the shuffling of that unknown stuff CAN lead to qualia.  we're making things more complicated than necessary, and i'd rather stick to the above post: qualia is an actual "something" (maintained by "something", by way of physics we know nothing of yet, as there is more to this universe than we can imagine) rather than "nothing" (maintained by simply having the right information flow.. just a shadow of the inner workings of a thinking-machine/computer**)

** let's say qualia is nothing, it's the universe watching itself.  if that is the case, we can create living creatures.  we can also inquire as to what information patterns lead to qualia.  and we could find that (as alluded in the above post) maybe even patterns of information that are "frozen in time" for whoever is "the ghost observing that pattern" (eg an image on a paper) are conscious... maybe even light switches have some rudimentary consciousness... the universe would be full of this "shadow of information shuffling itself being qualia".  i really don't see this scenario though.  ( by the way... in the show lexx, if qualia is nothing, and strong AI is true, and "shadows" of patterns of information lead to qualia.... then Kai would be as alive as anybody else.  and a lot of the show would not make sense heh)

it seems to me that qualia is "something".  it's an actual physical entity in reality, like an electron but different (since it relates to physics we know nothing of, rather than the physics of particles like electrons).  when i think about my qualia, it starts to get more intense; when i examine it, it's not -directly- connected to my senses, it's not what i would think a simple thinking-computer-brain would feel like


----------



## abohafs

hi guys , first of all i may be unknown to you all, but i wish i be a light friend to you . i have a point on that topic . first , let us think of someone who wanna go to his job early , what should he do? . Yes he will get up early and get in a taxi and go to work. why did he do that ? Yes he did that because he belived that he must follow follow the reasons to reach his point, right. Even , we if we wanna heaven , we must do everything through which we will be deserving to be there. And after that we will discover that the question that " what happens if we die ?" will be a stupid and silly one .
again i'm sorry for my interference but i thought that my opinion may be taken into consideration by you happy guys .


----------



## qwe

^ aside from the rofl-lol translation, i see what you're saying

i don't think that the way we move our physical bodies while alive (that is, our actions and their consequences) would, in any way, effect what happens after death....... why would it?

unless there is a judgemental god... but if god is judgemental, he doesn't exist and we made him in our selfish human image.  if god is not judgemental, no need to worry, we're all going to heaven or whatever he decides is awesomest


----------



## abohafs

ok you are not at right because God exists and we will be judged . first , im grateful to you to interact eith my message . why did you think that there is no a judgemental god as you say. please add me to your contacts on Yahoo to be more active . 

abo_hafs2011@yahoo.com


----------



## abohafs

i'm waiting for you


----------



## qwe

i think the tables should be turned.  there is no reason to think that there is a god and that we are judged by him when we die

if there is a god and he does judge us... the burden of proof is on you.  why would you say that that is the truth?  do you have any evidence?  otherwise, of course, i could say "when we die, we become a noodle, a noodle on the flying giant spaghetti monster's vagina".  obviously, that's not true, but if i feel it is true and you feel god is true, why is the "God's side" more logically appealing?  it isn't.  you only believe in the god/judgement stuff because you were raised as a child to do so, or society infected you with the religiomeme (don't try to translate that word).  

if your society believed in a flying sphagetti monster with human-noodle-vagina-pubic-hairs, well that is where you would be arguing we all end up upon death

--

point summed:
* if god is judgemental, he is not perfect. he was made by humans. and thus he does not judge us upon our death and does not exist
* if god is not judgemental, we need not worry about judging anyway

personally, i even believe that i would "get into heaven" if heaven were to exist, because i think i'm a very good person.  but i don't think it does, and part of your god's bible's judgement is to send me to hell simply for having the idea that there is no god--simply for having a certain chaotic patterned arrangement of electrons and cells in my brain.  why's god care about the electrons in my brain?  he should be caring about my actual soul.  ok irony done

>>i'm waiting for you >>

i'd prefer to keep our discourse public (don't even have yahoo).  though, let's not derail the thread with a god-vs-spaghetti debate.  your welcome for responding to your thread, but it's nothing personal


----------



## abohafs

what i meant when i asked you to add my e-mail , i meant that i have no time to wait for you adding or reply , so i thought that it will be better to follow " ask and reply " way to make the conversation more active. Anyway , im thinking that you are the moderator of Science and tech ,so our debate will be based on logical concepts. If you wanna have a cup of tea , you will have sugar , tea, cup , and a teaspoon then what ? you will boil the water and mix them all and you will have the cup of tea you wanted. Imagine you put all these content in an empty room , will you have that cup without be made by someone , off course no. Secondly, Imagine i came to your house and told you that while i was coming to you, i couldn't see any houses and suddenly i found the bricks or the woods were moving and organizing themselves to build your house and when i got in your house i found your furnitures were moving to create that great scene that you have in your house ,        Sure you will say that i went mad , right and you will be at right . Now, can you claim that all the world around you is without a creator, no you will not be at right friend . Thirdly i'm moslem and not a christian . fourth you are my friend so sweet, it is not my purpose . My purpose is to reach with you the right , the truth .


----------



## abohafs

waiting for you friend please i have many things to do


----------



## Marvo Ging

Something happens, that's all I believe. Something within us lasts forever, but what happens to it after we die I don't know.


----------



## qwe

sorry abohafs.  this is a forum so the discussion is "type away whenever you aren't doing other crap like work or school"

re: teacup, i think most of this community has moved past that logical fallacy.  i'll explain it briefly since this isn't a thread about whether the universe was created or not

it *IS* possible for a teacup, water, and sugar, to all "magically" rearrange themselves into the right order so that i have my cup of tea.  however, the probability of that happening is very very low (we would need more time than the entire universe has experienced so far, so basically it wouldn't happen)

if the universe is infinite, then you and i are created an infinite number of time, just out of chance.  how can something come from nothing?  well we've never found "nothing"..... "something" is all around is physically.  we cannot reach "nothingness".  spacetime itself is a structure, and it has energy (wiki Zero Point Energy).  universes can pop out of nothing due to random chance, it just doesnt happen very often.  the reason we're so lucky to be alive when that universe is here to support us, is because of the (wiki) Anthropic principle... we're going to be born wherever the universe is, wherever it is hospitable to life

technology is another way to put a broken egg back together and reverse time's arrow of entropy.  we can't do it yet, but all we'd need is to input energy to rearrange the chemical bonds in the right way.  theoeretically possible.  likewise, you would ask how humans came to be on earth.  i would answer that the sun is providing the necessary energy, and where there is an abundance of energy compared to the space around it, entropy can decrease rather than increase (aka, things can get more complex rather than less complex, and things can evolve)

hopefully i've woken up another soul today  but i have a feeling cultural upbringing will win out here


> My purpose is to reach with you the right , the truth .


i'm glad.  me too


----------



## psychoblast

When you die, it is like waking up from a dream. The dream was your life and the reality you wake up in is a higher level of consciousness. Because the higher level of consciousness remembers this dream, there is enough continuity in your sense of self that it is a form of immortality. However, you are also a very different being because this life is just one of many whose experiences are integrated into the higher consciousness. The others include family members, friends, etc., so you are in some sense "reunited" with them in death because you become the same person.

Or something like that.

~psychoblast~


----------



## Trigeminal

NOBODY KNOWS. 

Everything everyone is saying in this thread is just conjecture. 

Like the post above mine. ^  You just made all of that up.


----------



## qwe

The Philosophical Review said:


> How can mental phenomena affect what happens physically? Every physical outcome is causally assured already by preexisting physical circumstances; its mental antecedents are therefore left with nothing further to contribute


this relates to the life after death issue in the sense of, what is the ghost in the machine?

i think natural cause/effect relationships with natural entities are at play (entities and laws we haven't seen/considered yet) to create our qualia since all of the known laws and particles cannot create a system that creates qualia (since qualia is something totally different than information; information is an idea of an arrangement that cold exist... qualia is an actual phenomenon like a chair or photon that we experience)

as such, we have yet to determine whether we "die at death".  brane and string theories allow for the possibility of our brain sending and recieving information from other universes with different physical laws and constituents, and more


----------



## abohafs

*you think , you decide*

First i'm too glad that our purpose is to get the truth . so you said that the cup of tea may be created by a magical power , therefore """""""""""""""""that magical power require someone '"""""""""""""""""""""to use that power to get the cup of tea right. Then i read what you wrote and understood that you wanna say that the human life is found in any kind of  universe proper to life . i will accept it theoretical , although practical i disagree , then who makes that universe proper to life? . " Do nothingness create a thing?" and if you believe that we are created of nothingness so " do nothingness create nothingness?" 

i wanna you friend depend on your own mind , think of yourself " how do you speak" who is the one who organized all these systems in your body , is it luck , off course no ? we all happen that since we have universe or a being then there is off course a creator . thank you for your patience.


----------



## qwe

>>so you said that the cup of tea may be created by a magical power>>

no.  by the natural laws of physics

>>therefore """""""""""""""""that magical power require someone 'to use that power to get the cup of tea right.>>

no.  it can happen of its own accord.  this is mathematics/physics and has been demonstrated (not to the point of a teacup appearing out of thin air, but enough physical evidence is there that we can say that, conceivably, at some point in the universe, at some time (give enough time), a teacup would randomly appear out of thin air.  since you didn't get that i was saying it can happen of its own accord, you should go back and re-read my previous post, with this in mind:  no one is building the teacup

>>Then i read what you wrote and understood that you wanna say that the human life is found in any kind of  universe proper to life . i will accept it theoretical , although practical i disagree , then who makes that universe proper to life?>>

if there are many universes, and they are different from one another,

then the anthropic principle applies.  it's not theory here, it's a principle:  life will be more likely to be found among the universes that are more habitable to life.  if you don't accept that (and if you consider it theoretical) that's a logical mistake (but since you're religious, that may not matter )

>>Do nothingness create a thing?" and if you believe that we are created of nothingness so " do nothingness create nothingness?">>

if by nothingness, you mean "empty space(time)", yes, spacetime can and does (all the time) produce "something".  what we are calling "something" is physical particles, and what we are calling "nothing" is space... but space itself is not nothing, which is what i meant when i said, we have never been able to find, reach, examine, etc, "nothingness".  we are like fish in water in the sense that space itself is a structure

>>i wanna you friend depend on your own mind , think of yourself " how do you speak" who is the one who organized all these systems in your body , is it luck , off course no ?>>

i do think for myself, and i'm glad you're trying to do the same  (trying to be funny not mean)

it's not luck.  it's just the natural course of this universe.  the earth peoples in the same sense that an apple tree apples... the universe makes earths in the same sense that an apple tree makes apples.  it happens by way of evolution, aka, negative entropy progressing in stages of complexity due to a sophisticated exchage of information between the entity and its environment

our bodies were not designed.  god would have put our testis on the inside.  more seriously, there are many design flaws that god would not have made (organs that do nothing, for example) and all of these design flaws, when taken into account with DNA, point to other species as our ancestors.  no intelligence/being "designed" our bodies in any way, unless we are talking about aliens seeding our planet with DNA or even more advanced aliens seeding this universe with energy and setting the parameters just right for this type of life

>>we all happen that since we have universe or a being then there is off course a creator . thank you for your patience>>

np.  would you like me to take your sentences, and write them back to you in good english?

when i see a tree outside, i don't think "there must be a creator for that tree".  likewise, when i see this universe, i am mystified as to how it was created, but relying on the concept of god is logically similar to relying on the following concept:  a talking donut constructed our universe

they both have equal credibility, and they both do not make sense.  in all my experience, i have not found room for the god that exists in the christian bible or other major religions.  there may be a cosmic figure that is godlike, but i'm pretty sure there is no "one entity" superseding ALL of existence


----------



## psychoblast

Trigeminal said:


> NOBODY KNOWS.
> 
> Everything everyone is saying in this thread is just conjecture.
> 
> Like the post above mine. ^  You just made all of that up.



I resent that. It is not just "made up." It is a logical extrapolation of what I know and observe about reality. Plus, God told me.

~psychoblast~


----------



## psychoblast

Two men were arguing about whether magic existed. The first man, who said it did exist, bet the second man that he could chop down a tree simply by waving a magic wand. They picked a time, a day and a tree. They both showed up. The first man man was carrying a saw. "Hey," protested the second man, "You can't use a saw!" "Why not?" said the first man, "It's my wand -- it just happens to be a saw-shaped wand." The first man then put the sharp blade of his "saw-shaped wand" against the trunk of the tree and began to move it back and forth. Saw dust flew. "Hey," protested the second man, "You can't saw the tree like that! You are only supposed to 'wave' your want." The first man replied, "A wave is simply a back and forth movement. Notice I am simply moving my wand back and forth? We did not say I could not let the wand touch the tree while I waved it." And so the first man continued to "wave" his "wand" back and forth against the tree until, after a while, the tree was cut down. Thus demonstrating that the difference between magic and just doing stuff is just a matter of perspective.

~psychoblast~


----------



## abohafs

i'm so sorry for my bad english but is it so bad?
anyway, did you read about Islam ? the man who seeks for the truth should read about everything that may give him that truth . what will happen if you know that Allah <God> in the holy qura'an declared the stages  through which  the child will follow to be born and that was at the seven th century A.C. God says " HE created you from a single being; then from that HE made its mate; and HE has sent down for you of the cattle eight pairs. HE creates you in the wombs of your mothers, creation after creation, through three stages of darkness. This is ALLAH, your Lord. HIS is the Kingdom. There is no god but HE. Wither then are you being turned away ? " if you studied those stages you will know that they all are right . God says also " 12. Verily, WE created man from an extract of clay; 
13. Then WE placed him as a drop of sperm in a safe depository; 
14. Then WE fashioned the sperm into a clot; then WE fashioned the clot into a shapeless lump; then WE fashioned bones out of this shapeless lump; Then WE clothed the bones with flesh; Then WE developed it into another creation. So blessed be ALLAH, the Best of creators. 
15. Then after that you, surely, must die. 
16. Then on the Day of Resurrection you shall, surely, be raised up. 
17. And WE have created above you seven ways, and WE are never neglectful of the creation. " . Now i ask you is it luck ? . Off course no , you must know that who tells these sentences should by All-knowing , right? .


----------



## abohafs

I am surely convinced that the human being should exist on in the good universe proper to life , but my point is that " were we created by luck or by coexistence of the particles ? , so why cannot see many beings , like us , created with the same way ?do  the particles stop interacting with each other to create the beings like us and why? 


Is it natural that the earth orbits , this way , around the sun without derail its way ? 

my last  writing was not to force you read about Islam but it is a hope from a friend if you consider me  a friend .


----------



## abohafs

there are many things in the holy Qura'an that shows its greatness but i give you just a hint


----------



## qwe

abo, no i don't know that those sentences were written by divinity.  yes the earth's orbit around the sun is totally natural; the reason it does not simply fall into the sun is because it has momentum.  i know how deep religions and belief systems can get, so i know what you gave me is just a hint.  i can't say i'm your friend yet, because all we've talked about is islam.  but i can say one thing with certainty, i am *quite* agnostic/atheist


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

abohafs, please use the 'edit' function at the bottom righthand corner of your post, if you've already posted by want to say more. Please don't post more than one post in a row.



psychoblast said:


> Two men were arguing about whether magic existed. The first man, who said it did exist, bet the second man that he could chop down a tree simply by waving a magic wand. They picked a time, a day and a tree. They both showed up. The first man man was carrying a saw. "Hey," protested the second man, "You can't use a saw!" "Why not?" said the first man, "It's my wand -- it just happens to be a saw-shaped wand." The first man then put the sharp blade of his "saw-shaped wand" against the trunk of the tree and began to move it back and forth. Saw dust flew. "Hey," protested the second man, "You can't saw the tree like that! You are only supposed to 'wave' your want." The first man replied, "A wave is simply a back and forth movement. Notice I am simply moving my wand back and forth? We did not say I could not let the wand touch the tree while I waved it." And so the first man continued to "wave" his "wand" back and forth against the tree until, after a while, the tree was cut down. Thus demonstrating that the difference between magic and just doing stuff is just a matter of perspective.



That's a great post. I swear I once heard essentially the same message in one of those old conversations between two old Greek or Chinese sages. Magick is about changes within. The external actions are secondary to these, and look the same no matter what inner states motivate them.


----------



## qwe

and of course the wonderful quote,

any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from "magic"


----------



## Trigeminal

psychoblast said:


> I resent that. It is not just "made up." It is a logical extrapolation of what I know and observe about reality. Plus, God told me.
> 
> ~psychoblast~



I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not (for the sake of humanity, I really hope you are), but I have a sinking suspicion that you're not. Explain to me how exactly what you said is not made up. You are reminding me of Joseph Smith in this episode of South Park right now: 

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103933

Psychoblast is dumdumdum.


----------



## naginnudej

you create your own reality in all endeavors. death included.


----------



## qwe

i hope i havent offended you abo.  you're sorta approaching this as a personal chatroom, when instead it's more a public thread.  but yeah i would say most of the people in this thread, including you abo, are my friends


----------



## Visionary_Kpsycho

I honestly don’t know, Biology wise it seems god does not exist.  Physics wise, I would say he does.  Roger Penrose is an amazing physicist, and like he said the universe existed in a highly organized state at the beginning of the universe, because since the 2nd law of thermodynamics say entropy gets more random over time, that means at the beginning it was in a highly organized condition.


----------



## Raw Evil

naginnudej said:


> you create your own reality in all endeavors. death included.


This!


----------



## psychoblast

Trigeminal said:


> I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not (for the sake of humanity, I really hope you are), but I have a sinking suspicion that you're not. Explain to me how exactly what you said is not made up. You are reminding me of Joseph Smith in this episode of South Park right now:
> 
> http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103933
> 
> Psychoblast is dumdumdum.



Well, let's start with some basics. When you die, either nothing happens (i.e., your consciousness is extinguished completely) or there is some sort of afterlife (i.e., your consciousness continues in some capacity). I believe the latter. I would explain, but this thread is not about whether an afterlife exists, but is about what it is like, so let's take the existence of an afterlife as a given and move on.

I think it is easy to see that the moment of death and movement to an afterlife is an abrupt, qualitative transition in consciousness. Have you ever experienced one of those? I think falling asleep and waking are probably the most logical analogies. In the absence of any evidence that this process feels like anything else, it makes sense to initially theorize it would be akin to waking up. This is called extrapolating from the known to the unknown and, in the absence of proof, it makes sense to expect the unknown to be like the known (the law of similarities).

Now, also from the law of similarities, we should theorize that everything is conscious. I mean, I'm conscious. I only know for myself whether I am conscious or not, and I certainly am. It would be absurd of me to assume other people or things are not conscious when my only sample study (myself) is conscious.

Also, we see fractals all around us in nature. It turns out, pretty much everything in the universe can be seen as a form of fractal. Even sentences. Applying the law of similarities, it is likely that consciousness is a fractal, that our consciousness is a part that makes up a whole of a larger consciousness. Similar to multiple neurons making up a brain.

Anyway, from having experienced ego-death, I learned that death is not to be feared because the larger, higher consciousness is immortal and my body is a relatively unimportant, if divinely inspired, physical shell.

Throw all this together and add a dash of habadashery (unless that means hat store, in which case omit it), and the most likely scenario seems to be that our death reunites our fractal / fragmentary consciousness with the next higher level of consciousness of which we are a part. We basically become that of which we are now only a part. Obviously, we cannot know what this feels like, but the most analogous experience we have on a regular basis is the process of reintegrating our consciousness upon waking. In fact, in dreams, we are generally not ourselves, but are a fragment of our self and so when we wake from dreams, we often have to reintegrate the dream-self with our fuller, real self.

The bottom line is, I doubt there can be any more logical guess for what death feels like, than that it feels like the process of waking from a dream -- in which this life was a dream -- and then being reintegrated into the larger consciousness of which we are a part.

I will qualify this to the extent that it may require that our own consciousness is unified and somewhat in touch with the higher consciousness, so that we are drawn up upon death. Otherwise, if our mind is divided against itself and we are rooted into the conflicts inherent to our physicality, it may be that we go the other way, and our consciousness fragments, and we become lots of conscious, albeit inert, organic parts that then get slowly reintegrated into higher consciousnesses (like worms to birds, etc.)

Basically, there is a whole consciousness food chain and you can slip down the chain or rise up it. It really does not matter since, in time, everything works its way up.

~psychoblast~


----------



## 33Hz

Decay... As for consciousness, well you can never really be sure until you experience death yourself. Though I am inclined to think that a functioning brain is necessary for consciousness, and so in the event of brain death, consciousness dies with it.


----------



## jpgrdnr

I've kinda bought into this whole DMT/dream state thing upon death. I mean its a nice comforting idea, but nothing more. I think there is probably some hidden physical process that allows your consciousness to die in your brain. It may only last subjectively seconds, but I would think there would be some safety mechanism in place that creates a dream(?) that allows you to confront death.

But what happens when you get your head blown off?

I think the worst part is that's it. Nadda. Finito. So enjoy this thing called life. 

And stop worry about this death bit.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

psychoblast, that was a good post.

I also agree that consciousness is just a property of, and a necessary ingredient to, 'existence'. That's what the whole tree falling in the woods koan is all about, when you think about it.

I think 'mind' which we're experiencing now, is just a recurrent thing, like the basic particles of matter. So essentially after you die, and the universe is done experiencing itself through your eyes, it'll soon create a new mind through which to look reflexively at itself. This, to me, is what Buddhists mean by rebirth, as opposed to reincarnation, whereby there is no direct causal link between one iteration as a sentient being and another -- no 'thing' that travels between them, but they're stacked upon each other like blocks, depending upon each other for structural support.


----------



## qwe

Visionary_Kpsycho said:


> I honestly don’t know, Biology wise it seems god does not exist.  Physics wise, I would say he does.  Roger Penrose is an amazing physicist, and like he said the universe existed in a highly organized state at the beginning of the universe, because since the 2nd law of thermodynamics say entropy gets more random over time, that means at the beginning it was in a highly organized condition.


one possible resolution to this (there are many) is black holes and their information paradox

everything that goes into a black hole loses all its information.  a black hole with equal parameters as another black hole are EQUAL.  so, imagine a universe collapsing into a BH.  the result, is the universe has become a singularity of the highest possible order / lowest possible entropy (AKA what the universe was, as far as we can tell, before the big bang)

thus leading to the idea of BANG CRUNCH BANG CRUNCH BANG CRUNCH

we exist within the bang and the crunch


----------



## Enlitx

psychoblast said:


> Well, let's start with some basics. When you die, either nothing happens (i.e., your consciousness is extinguished completely) or there is some sort of afterlife (i.e., your consciousness continues in some capacity). I believe the latter. I would explain, but this thread is not about whether an afterlife exists, but is about what it is like, so let's take the existence of an afterlife as a given and move on.



I would suggest that since the only consciousness that we know of is causally linked to organic brains, once the brain stops functioning, consciousness ceases to exist.  There is no mechanism that I am aware of that could explain the continuation of conscious thought beyond the death of brain tissue.



psychoblast said:


> I think it is easy to see that the moment of death and movement to an afterlife is an abrupt, qualitative transition in consciousness. Have you ever experienced one of those? I think falling asleep and waking are probably the most logical analogies. In the absence of any evidence that this process feels like anything else, it makes sense to initially theorize it would be akin to waking up. This is called extrapolating from the known to the unknown and, in the absence of proof, it makes sense to expect the unknown to be like the known (the law of similarities).



I can understand the transition to death mirroring the transition to sleep, as both processes would represent a suppression of the neural activity required for a functioning consciousness.  The difference with death is that once this suppression takes place, there is no route to regain the proper chemical balance required for cognition.  Thus, consciousness comes to an end permanently.  



psychoblast said:


> Now, also from the law of similarities, we should theorize that everything is conscious. I mean, I'm conscious. I only know for myself whether I am conscious or not, and I certainly am. It would be absurd of me to assume other people or things are not conscious when my only sample study (myself) is conscious.



What law are you referring to?  I am aware of different laws relating to psychology or the grouping of elements in the periodic table, but could you reference which law you are referring to?

I think it would be absurd to assume consciousness exists in an object unless that object possessed the basic biological components that are required for brain activity.  Perhaps that will change with the advent of computer generated consciousness, but right now we only observe consciousness in biological organisms.   That is why it is easy to assume a rock is not conscious and a dolphin would be.  



psychoblast said:


> Also, we see fractals all around us in nature. It turns out, pretty much everything in the universe can be seen as a form of fractal. Even sentences. Applying the law of similarities, it is likely that consciousness is a fractal, that our consciousness is a part that makes up a whole of a larger consciousness. Similar to multiple neurons making up a brain.



Again, what law allows you to extrapolate that consciousness is a fractal because fractals exist in nature?  The human brain does not represent a fractal in anatomy nor physiology.  Neurons are not arranged in a fractal pattern.  If organic tissue is required for consciousness, what do you assume makes up this larger consciousness?  I guess I am unsure how you theorize a "larger consciousness" would exist.  I haven't seen any empirical evidence to suggest such a thing exists.  



psychoblast said:


> Anyway, from having experienced ego-death, I learned that death is not to be feared because the larger, higher consciousness is immortal and my body is a relatively unimportant, if divinely inspired, physical shell.



Ego death is not the same thing as death.  You were experiencing a shift in brain function brought on by chemical intoxication.  Your brain was still very much functioning though, and death would be the exact opposite with a complete loss of function.  You couldn't feel part of the universe without a functioning brain to convey that message.



psychoblast said:


> Throw all this together and add a dash of habadashery (unless that means hat store, in which case omit it), and the most likely scenario seems to be that our death reunites our fractal / fragmentary consciousness with the next higher level of consciousness of which we are a part. We basically become that of which we are now only a part. Obviously, we cannot know what this feels like, but the most analogous experience we have on a regular basis is the process of reintegrating our consciousness upon waking. In fact, in dreams, we are generally not ourselves, but are a fragment of our self and so when we wake from dreams, we often have to reintegrate the dream-self with our fuller, real self.



I think that people just want to believe in life after death because survival is encoded into our brains.  I didn't see anything in your post that has been suggested by any empirical evidence, it seemed like a vague association of ideas that don't really reflect what we know about how the brain works and how consciousness is generated.  To the best of our knowledge, your experience after death will be exactly like the experience before you were born, that is, nothing at all. 




psychoblast said:


> I will qualify this to the extent that it may require that our own consciousness is unified and somewhat in touch with the higher consciousness, so that we are drawn up upon death. Otherwise, if our mind is divided against itself and we are rooted into the conflicts inherent to our physicality, it may be that we go the other way, and our consciousness fragments, and we become lots of conscious, albeit inert, organic parts that then get slowly reintegrated into higher consciousnesses (like worms to birds, etc.)
> 
> Basically, there is a whole consciousness food chain and you can slip down the chain or rise up it. It really does not matter since, in time, everything works its way up.
> 
> ~psychoblast~




Could you explain exactly how this higher consciousness would work and the mechanism behind its function?  I guess it sounds to me like these are vague ideas that don't really predict any behavior because they aren't saying anything specifically.


----------



## psychoblast

Enlitx:

What is the difference between gravity and love? I can show you all sorts of inanimate objects "choosing" to move toward one thing, or away from something else, much like a person might move toward some one they find attractive.

You take a very scientific approach to this topic, so you of all people should agree that brain chemistry obeys the laws of physics and is merely a very complicated interaction of various physical laws. Thus, there is no qualitative difference between a person driving a car to work and an apple falling from a tree. Both actions were equally the product of natural forces and natural laws.

Yet you want to conclude that consciousness is rooted in the brain. However, you are essentially assuming that natural laws -- forces that MOVE things in PATTERNS -- are divorced from any consciousness?

Let's step back and recognize that the brain is a democracy of neurons. Each neuron has a fragment of self-awareness and consciousness. These neurons are born, they serve a purpose, they communicate, they grow, they move, they adapt, they eventually die. You want to say the neurons are entirely divorced from consciousness?  That they have absolutely ZERO consciousness?

A human is made up of organs. The organs were once each separate organisms who, ages ago, came together to work together to survive. They all assumed different roles to help themselves survive. Over time, they evolved to better and better fulfill those roles. One such organism eventually evolved into a liver. Another into a stomach. Another into skin. They surrendered individuality for interdependence until they stopped being separate organisms and they merged into one, substantially more complex, multi-organ, organism. This is one of the ways that evolution works.

Those organisms, that we now think of as organs in our bodies, were themselves evolved when various single celled organisms elected to band together, to work together for survival, and over eons developed specialization and interdependence until they were no longer single celled organisms working together, they became the first multi-celled organisms.

You can look back at our evolutionary path and see how this process repeatedly unfolds, and then you can realize it is also unfolding in the same way in the present and future. Are people banding together to form more complex, interdependent entities? It has already happened. Every organization is a collection of interdependent people working toward a common purpose for mutual benefit. We have governmental bodies, corporations (or "artificial persons"), associations. We specialize for the good of the larger organization of which we are part. We have food growers, food transporters, communication facilitators, defenders, healers, etc. Just like your body has white blood cells (defenders), red blood cells (transporters), communication facilitators (neurons), etc.

Organ --> Organism --> Organization

And it is frankly incredibly conceited and short-sighted to believe this relationship does not extend further in both directions ala:

. . . --> ? --> ? --> ? --> cells --> organs --> organisms --> organizations --> ? --> ? --> ? --> ...

Disputing this, and insisting this relationship ONLY exists in the limited range we can perceive with our senses, is akin to believing there is no life in the unverse except what is on planet Earth, simply because that is all we see. I cannot believe you, as a scientifically minded person, would embrace such a view.

Anyway, at what point in this evolutionary path do you suddenly think, "okay, NOW conscious suddenly came into being." I mean, can anything be concious if its building blocks are not conscious? Can anything NOT be conscious if its building blocks are conscious?

Would you agree McDonalds ACTS like a conscious entity? It grows, it shows self-interest. It maneuvers in a very complex manner. It is mortal, and it appears to have a sense of its own mortality. How is McDonalds not a conscious entity? No chemical components? Are not the people who run it made up of chemicals? How are McDonald's management's internal memos not equivalent to neurons sending messages around a body?

I think you need to look into a philosophical approach called functionalism, as it may help you let go of some of your limited views on consciousness.

Anyway, if it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, it is probably a duck. I think most scientists would approve of such reasoning. When humans engage in patterned movements (dancing, for example), we agree that is a product of consciousness. So why, then, do you dispute that any patterned movement is a display of consciousness? And is not everything in the universe a product of patterned movement? There is no such thing as an inanimate object. A rock is full of particles flying around in amazing patterns. So is a hammer.

Going back full circle, I expect you will try to distinguish between self-propelled movement and movement that is a response to outside forces. However, going back to SCIENTIFIC belief that humans are merely organic substances obeying physical laws, any movement by any human is necessarily a predictable response to outside forces. A man driving to work is no more "self-propelled" than an apple falling from a tree.

But, yeah, you want to believe that the brain is the key to consciousness, that it cannot exist in the absence of this one organic structure. And you think THAT is logical?

Which brings me to my law of similarities. The scientific method is flawed to the extent it preaches skeptism in the absence of knowledge. That means you assume the negative of any proposal (e.g., that the earth ecosystem is a conscious being) in the absence of affirmative proof. The problem with this approach is that it violates something we should all feel is true -- that we are all fundamentally alike, that everything is fundamentally similar. In the absence of any knowledge, you should assume that the unknown is similar to the known. THAT is the law of similarities. Thus, in the absence of knowledge whether anything else is conscious, we should assume everything is conscious like us. That makes a lot more sense than thinking that nothing is conscious unless it has something we, with our limited perceptions, can recognize as a brain.

Perhaps the most well-known variation of the law of similarities is the Golden Rule -- "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." What is this rule based on? The assumption that people are similar, they enjoy similar things. Thus, what you like, other people probably like. If you agree -- as I think most do -- that the Golden Rule is brilliant in its elegant simplicity and truth, then I suggest you consider wider embrace of the law of similarities, on which the Golden Rule is based.

~psychoblast~


----------



## Enlitx

psychoblast said:


> What is the difference between gravity and love? I can show you all sorts of inanimate objects "choosing" to move toward one thing, or away from something else, much like a person might move toward some one they find attractive.



It is a false equivalency to suggest that emotional reactions represent the same thing as basic laws of physics.  By the very definition, consciousness is a step removed from the basic interactions involving forces such as gravity.  We deem consciousness as special because it represents a complex and dynamic steady state system that is capable of resisting the laws of physics (steady state, not in equilibrium).  Inanimate objects do not posses the cellular machinery required for consciousness, so there certainly is no choice involved with the inanimate object. 



psychoblast said:


> You take a very scientific approach to this topic, so you of all people should agree that brain chemistry obeys the laws of physics and is merely a very complicated interaction of various physical laws. Thus, there is no qualitative difference between a person driving a car to work and an apple falling from a tree. Both actions were equally the product of natural forces and natural laws.



OK, I can agree with the notion that brains and apples must obey the same laws of physics.  



psychoblast said:


> Yet you want to conclude that consciousness is rooted in the brain. However, you are essentially assuming that natural laws -- forces that MOVE things in PATTERNS -- are divorced from any consciousness?



Yes I am assuming that.  The basic forces are what interact with each other to produce consciousness.  The forces are just that, forces.  They are mathematically defined constructs that predict the behavior of particles and energy.  That is far different from what consciousness is.  



psychoblast said:


> Let's step back and recognize that the brain is a democracy of neurons. Each neuron has a fragment of self-awareness and consciousness. These neurons are born, they serve a purpose, they communicate, they grow, they move, they adapt, they eventually die. You want to say the neurons are entirely divorced from consciousness?  That they have absolutely ZERO consciousness?



Depends on how you want to define consciousness.  These neurons certainly posses the capability to respond to stimuli in a coordinated and meaningful fashion, but I would not call it consciousness.  Here is the first definition of consciousness I pulled off the web, "a. Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts".

A cell does not have these characteristics.  Most people seem to recognize that consciousness is the product of advanced evolution and thus requires a certain degree of complexity that cannot be found in a single cell.  Think of how complex the human brain is, or even the brains of lower animals.  There are billions of neurons involved in the generation of consciousness.  



psychoblast said:


> A human is made up of organs. The organs were once each separate organisms who, ages ago, came together to work together to survive. They all assumed different roles to help themselves survive. Over time, they evolved to better and better fulfill those roles. One such organism eventually evolved into a liver. Another into a stomach. Another into skin. They surrendered individuality for interdependence until they stopped being separate organisms and they merged into one, substantially more complex, multi-organ, organism. This is one of the ways that evolution works.
> 
> Those organisms, that we now think of as organs in our bodies, were themselves evolved when various single celled organisms elected to band together, to work together for survival, and over eons developed specialization and interdependence until they were no longer single celled organisms working together, they became the first multi-celled organisms.



Your idea of how multicellular organisms evolved is a a little off.  The advent of the primitive multicellular organisms probably involved incomplete cytokinesis or the colonial theory.  Anyways, it was a long way down the line before a liver existed as a distinct organ of distinct tissue.  The organs of our body evolved as one single organism, just a multicellular organism.  Different organisms did not all of the sudden merge as developed organs that just happened to work well together.  In my microbiology seminar it was stressed that organisms can only tolerate small changes in information (mutations resulting in evolution).  Your idea of a "substantial" increase in complexity doesn't really fit since complexity was increased gradually.

Actual endosymbiosis has only occurred with the mitochondria and chloroplast to my knowledge.  In each case there was distinct DNA left for each organelle, and it is the reason you can trace lineages back using mitochondrial DNA.  This was not the mechanism for our organ development, otherwise the separate organs would have separate DNA.  



psychoblast said:


> You can look back at our evolutionary path and see how this process repeatedly unfolds, and then you can realize it is also unfolding in the same way in the present and future. Are people banding together to form more complex, interdependent entities? It has already happened. Every organization is a collection of interdependent people working toward a common purpose for mutual benefit. We have governmental bodies, corporations (or "artificial persons"), associations. We specialize for the good of the larger organization of which we are part. We have food growers, food transporters, communication facilitators, defenders, healers, etc. Just like your body has white blood cells (defenders), red blood cells (transporters), communication facilitators (neurons), etc.
> 
> Organ --> Organism --> Organization
> 
> And it is frankly incredibly conceited and short-sighted to believe this relationship does not extend further in both directions ala:
> 
> . . . --> ? --> ? --> ? --> cells --> organs --> organisms --> organizations --> ? --> ? --> ? --> ...



I am failing to see the logic here.  What is it that you think goes after organizations?  You have outlined the evolution of biological life, and I am not quite sure what you are suggesting this means.  That something more complex exists? If so, what exactly?  



psychoblast said:


> Disputing this, and insisting this relationship ONLY exists in the limited range we can perceive with our senses, is akin to believing there is no life in the unverse except what is on planet Earth, simply because that is all we see. I cannot believe you, as a scientifically minded person, would embrace such a view.



No, they are two separate things.  It is likely that aliens exist in some fashion because the same laws of physics applies to the same molecules in other regions of space.  I don't even know exactly what you are suggesting, that somehow there is a larger consciousness after death?  What makes you think this is true?  There is no mechanism to explain it, since consciousness has only arisen from organic matter that is in a steady state.  We don't observe that with anything else except the life on this planet.  



psychoblast said:


> Anyway, at what point in this evolutionary path do you suddenly think, "okay, NOW conscious suddenly came into being." I mean, can anything be concious if its building blocks are not conscious? Can anything NOT be conscious if its building blocks are conscious?
> 
> Would you agree McDonalds ACTS like a conscious entity? It grows, it shows self-interest. It maneuvers in a very complex manner. It is mortal, and it appears to have a sense of its own mortality. How is McDonalds not a conscious entity? No chemical components? Are not the people who run it made up of chemicals? How are McDonald's management's internal memos not equivalent to neurons sending messages around a body?



I think you need to pin down what you mean by conscious.  According to my definition, it is relegated to biological organisms at this point in time.  This consciousness can not be transferred past death because it is the product of the brain.  What is interacting to create this "larger" consciousness you are talking about?  I need to know what this thing is if I can make any claims against it. All I know so far is that it is a larger, more  complex consciousness.  I don't know what perpetuates the consciousness, what molecules are interacting to create it, where it resides, etc...  It is very vague, and because it is so vague, it is almost meaningless.  



psychoblast said:


> I think you need to look into a philosophical approach called functionalism, as it may help you let go of some of your limited views on consciousness.
> 
> Anyway, if it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, it is probably a duck. I think most scientists would approve of such reasoning. When humans engage in patterned movements (dancing, for example), we agree that is a product of consciousness. So why, then, do you dispute that any patterned movement is a display of consciousness? And is not everything in the universe a product of patterned movement? There is no such thing as an inanimate object. A rock is full of particles flying around in amazing patterns. So is a hammer.



Consciousness is much more than just patterned movement.  In fact, quantam physics dictates that there are no patterns when you get down to the particles of the rock.  It is all random.  But even if there were patterns in the electron movement, it still would not represent anything close to consciousness.



psychoblast said:


> Going back full circle, I expect you will try to distinguish between self-propelled movement and movement that is a response to outside forces. However, going back to SCIENTIFIC belief that humans are merely organic substances obeying physical laws, any movement by any human is necessarily a predictable response to outside forces. A man driving to work is no more "self-propelled" than an apple falling from a tree.
> 
> But, yeah, you want to believe that the brain is the key to consciousness, that it cannot exist in the absence of this one organic structure. And you think THAT is logical?



I am saying that the brain provides the only mechanism that we know of that can produce consciousness.  I guess if _you_ want to define consciousness as nothing more than patterned movement, then a lot of things would be considered conscious.  



psychoblast said:


> Which brings me to my law of similarities. The scientific method is flawed to the extent it preaches skeptism in the absence of knowledge. That means you assume the negative of any proposal (e.g., that the earth ecosystem is a conscious being) in the absence of affirmative proof. The problem with this approach is that it violates something we should all feel is true -- that we are all fundamentally alike, that everything is fundamentally similar. In the absence of any knowledge, you should assume that the unknown is similar to the known. THAT is the law of similarities. Thus, in the absence of knowledge whether anything else is conscious, we should assume everything is conscious like us. That makes a lot more sense than thinking that nothing is conscious unless it has something we, with our limited perceptions, can recognize as a brain.



What?  That was wrong on so many levels.  Consciousness is an extremely complicated thing that requires highly evolved processes.  It would be much more prudent to assume something is not conscious unless it meets some biological standard.  There is no law of similarities, that is not even a theory, and I have never even heard of it being proposed as a valid hypothesis in any scientific papers.  It sound more like wishful thinking.  If it is more than that, please reference the academic journals that describe it.  



psychoblast said:


> Perhaps the most well-known variation of the law of similarities is the Golden Rule -- "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." What is this rule based on? The assumption that people are similar, they enjoy similar things. Thus, what you like, other people probably like. If you agree -- as I think most do -- that the Golden Rule is brilliant in its elegant simplicity and truth, then I suggest you consider wider embrace of the law of similarities, on which the Golden Rule is based.
> 
> ~psychoblast~



So, because humans have evolved empathy via mirror neurons you can extrapolate a law that says consciousness probably exists because everything probably has the attributes that we do.  That is really what you are saying?


----------



## psychoblast

> consciousness probably exists because everything probably has the attributes that we do.



Yeah, that's one way to put it. Another is that extrapolation from the observed is the best way to understand the unobservable.

Also, I never said evolution was not gradual. You set up a straw man to knock it down -- how clever of you. Regardless, I do believe separate organisms can come together in a symbiotic or even parasitic relationship that, in time, evolves until they merge into a single entity and their dna strands merge. The image of a singular organism evolving over time from single-celled, to multi-celled, to multil-organed is absurd. Moreover, it does not account for what we see in front of our face, as people come together in societies and specialize to work for a common good. It also does not explain the Borg.

Also, I think you are confusing conciousness with intelligence and with other variable characteristics. I'm not sure consciousness even requires emotions.

Finally, you are clearly contradicting yourself when you claim that consciousness is the ability to resist the laws of nature, but then you agree that brain activity -- which you say gives rise to consciousness -- is subject to the laws of nature.  In fact, it appears you are the one who has a pseudo-religious perspective of consciousness, placing it on a pedestal above the natural laws of the universe and acting as if it spontaneously and magically poofed into existence when organic brain tissue got sufficiently complex. Very scientific.

I mean, let's back up. You agree humans are conscious. I assume you agree mammals in general are conscious -- dogs, monkeys, rabbits. That slipperly slope leads to agreement that birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish -- hell, all animals and insects -- are conscious. I mean, what is the most complex organism that you think does NOT have consciousness? Or what is the simplest organism that you think DOES have consciousness? Where do you draw that line? Because if you do not draw that line, then there are some organisms out there that are far simpler than human organs and cells and  it makes no sense to believe those simple organisms are conscious, but that our own more complex organs and cells are not conscious. And then if you agree the conscious human body is comprised of many smaller conscious bodies (organs, cells, whatever), then you can EXTRAPOLATE that a collection of consciousnesses give rise to a higher consciousness, because that is what we experience in the human body, and why assume that we are unique rather than assuming that we are similar to everything around us?

~psychoblast~


----------



## Enlitx

psychoblast said:


> Yeah, that's one way to put it. Another is that extrapolation from the observed is the best way to understand the unobservable.



Ok, since we only observe consciousness in biological organisms, one would extrapolate that there might be consciousness in other biological organisms.  What organism are you referring to when you reference this larger consciousness?



psychoblast said:


> Also, I never said evolution was not gradual. You set up a straw man to knock it down -- how clever of you. Regardless, I do believe separate organisms can come together in a symbiotic or even parasitic relationship that, in time, evolves until they merge into a single entity and their dna strands merge. The image of a singular organism evolving over time from single-celled, to multi-celled, to multil-organed is absurd. Moreover, it does not account for what we see in front of our face, as people come together in societies and specialize to work for a common good. It also does not explain the Borg.



Yes you did.  You said that different organisms all of the sudden came together to create one larger organism, drastically increasing the complexity.  That is sudden and abrupt, which is not gradual.  I agree that different organisms can come together, that is how you have mitochondria.  That is likely not how multicellular organisms evolved though.  It has been *well* established that single celled organisms gave rise to multicellular organisms which gave rise to organisms with multiple organs.  That is the very basis of evolution.  The organs in your body did not evolve as separate organisms only to be joined together to form a functioning body.  Evolution just doesn't work like that.  

What is a Borg?  Star Trek?



psychoblast said:


> Also, I think you are confusing conciousness with intelligence and with other variable characteristics. I'm not sure consciousness even requires emotions.



No, I am merely using a common definition of consciousness.  Why don't you define it as you see it, that would help this dialogue.  



psychoblast said:


> Finally, you are clearly contradicting yourself when you claim that consciousness is the ability to resist the laws of nature, but then you agree that brain activity -- which you say gives rise to consciousness -- is subject to the laws of nature.  In fact, it appears you are the one who has a pseudo-religious perspective of consciousness, placing it on a pedestal above the natural laws of the universe and acting as if it spontaneously and magically poofed into existence when organic brain tissue got sufficiently complex. Very scientific.



Huh?  I said consciousness is the result of a steady state which resists the normal equilibrium that occurs without biological intervention.  This steady state perpetuates a balance that would not normally occur without biological activity.  You know, pumping K+ out or Ca++ in.  If the brain was allowed to reach equilibrium you would be dead, thus I said that consciousness resists the normal fate of chemicals subject to the laws of nature.  Of course everything still follows physics, I never thought it didn't.  When I said resist the laws of nature, I meant resist the normal fate of chemicals subject to the laws of nature.  I never believed the laws themselves would actually change, perhaps I should have been clearer.  



psychoblast said:


> I mean, let's back up. You agree humans are conscious. I assume you agree mammals in general are conscious -- dogs, monkeys, rabbits. That slipperly slope leads to agreement that birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish -- hell, all animals and insects -- are conscious. I mean, what is the most complex organism that you think does NOT have consciousness? Or what is the simplest organism that you think DOES have consciousness? Where do you draw that line? Because if you do not draw that line, then there are some organisms out there that are far simpler than human organs and cells and  it makes no sense to believe those simple organisms are conscious, but that our own more complex organs and cells are not conscious. And then if you agree the conscious human body is comprised of many smaller conscious bodies (organs, cells, whatever), then you can EXTRAPOLATE that a collection of consciousnesses give rise to a higher consciousness, because that is what we experience in the human body, and why assume that we are unique rather than assuming that we are similar to everything around us?
> 
> ~psychoblast~



Complexity does not equal consciousness, consciousness represents the arrangement of cells so they can produce thought patterns and responses to stimuli that suggest self awareness and cognitive function beyond simple reflexes.  Of course different people draw the line at different places, but it is basically looking at a bunch of organisms and saying to yourself, "At this point, the reaction of this organism doesn't represent any simple reflex, but a consorted response that suggests highly coordinated biological activity akin to our own ability to reason."  It is not a simple issue to decide when consciousness begins, but it is relatively simple to understand that outside of biological organisms, we haven't observed anything that responds to stimuli in a manner suggesting consciousness as we know it.


----------



## Xtc <3

Personally I believe there is no such thing as death


----------



## psychoblast

> You said that different organisms all of the sudden came together to create one larger organism, drastically increasing the complexity.



I never used the phrase "all of the sudden." On the contrary, as I explained originally, different organisms came together to work for common survival. They did qualitatively different things for the common good. Over time -- LOTS OF TIME -- they became more and more specialized and interdependent and they GRADUALLY evolved into a new, more complex organism. I never EVER said this was sudden. It took place over millions and billions of years.



> It has been well established that single celled organisms gave rise to multicellular organisms which gave rise to organisms with multiple organs.



This is the what, not the how. I'm telling you the how. How did a multicellular oganisms give rise to organisms with multiple organs? They banded together for survival, started becoming more interdependent and gradually the organism reached a level of interdependence that reduced them to mere organs.

And we cannot observe consciousness in others. Consciousness is self-awareness, which is inherently non-observable. Thus, we can ONLY observe ourselves, and we see that, lo and behold, we ARE conscious. Since this is all we can observe, then 100% of observable phenomena are conscious. Thus, it makes perfect sense to believe that everything is conscious. Well, not all everythings, but some everythings.

Can you prove that anything is not self-aware?

Oh, and if "cognitive function beyond simple reflexes" were evidence of consciousness, then a lot of computers and/or programs would be conscious. If the human brain is nothing more than an extremely complex computing machine, which seems to follow from your position that it is all chemicals subject to natural laws, then why is a human conscious but not a computer? What is the secret spark of consciousness?

For that matter, where does consciousness reside physically? In the brain? In the neurons? In an electrical charge connecting neurons? It is indefineable. The more you try to limit consciousness to a biological byproduct, the more you actually make a STRONGER case that consciousness is some crazy, magical happenstance. I think that is actually a LESS logical and scientific approach than believing the spark of consciousness exists eternally in all things. My explanation avoids having to chase the hopeless quest to pin down a workable theory on where consciousness originates or dwells.

I think you are too young. I was an epiphenomenalist myself once. You'll grow out of it.

~psychoblast~


----------



## Enlitx

You are still missing the point about the evolution of multicellular organisms.  They evolved as a single organism from the get go.  Once eukaryotes developed a nucleus and differentiated cell types, organisms generally developed on their own.  The mitochondria is one example of endosymbiosis, but this is an exception, not the rule.  It seems you have a vague understanding of how evolution works, but you are just winging it with your own idea regardless of how things actually played out.  Of course foreign DNA finds its way into the chromosomes of multicellular organisms, but the idea that specialized organs developed because different organisms came together after evolving to carry out those organs' specific functions is off the mark.  

You have it backwards, organs did not result from a conjugation of separate organisms, they arose from the differentiation of a single organism that evolved.   

We are conscious because we have an incredibly complex neurological system in play.  Once you remove that, consciousness ceases to exist.  It seems like a pretty basic idea to grasp.  Since there seems to be a causal link between the brain and consciousness, it would be logical to look for consciousness where a similar biological system is present.  Until we are able to duplicate this phenomenon with computing technology, the only rational place to look for consciousness is other animals.  So in conclusion, it is _not_ logical to assume everything around us is conscious.  There is no basis for such a broad assumption.  

As I have said, it is difficult to define consciousness, and one ultimately ends up with an arbitrary line.  Still, this does not mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater and just define everything as conscious.  I personally believe that consciousness is a dynamic system that relies on the brain to perpetuate its existence.  So, while it physically resides in the brain, brain activity is required to store memories and such.  I don't think that memories are static and tied to neuronal structure alone.  

Either way, since I am too young to understand this as you have suggested, why don't you explain to me the possible mechanism behind some "higher" consciousness.  Is it similar to the electrophysiology we observe in brains?  What makes you think it exists beyond our own consciousness, which I have just show to be linked to the brain, and thus very unlikely to exist where a brain is not present?


----------



## psychoblast

I do not think you can prove evolution did not work as I have suggested.

How does the first creature evolve multiple organs? Or multiple cells? These changes are too complex to write off as a random genetic mutation. My theory -- that multiple organisms teamed up and eventually evolved into a single organims with a higher order of complexity -- provides an elegant solution to this dilemma because it allows for very comples genetic change and evolution that is NOT dependent upon radical random mutation.



> We are conscious because we have an incredibly complex neurological system in play



I'm still waiting for you to explain just how complex a neurological system has to be for it to give rise to consciousness. Even if you cannot be 100% sure, you still ought to be able to guesstimate where you would draw the line.

If consciousness arises from an network of neurons connected and working together through paths of communication, then how is that any different from the United States government? Last I checked, people are walking neuron-containers. Societies work together through paths of communication.

Example 1: A person steps on a thorn. The pain signals travel up on the neurological pathways to the brain which then sends a signal to various muscles that, in a coordinated fashion, cause the body to reach down and remove the thorn.

Example 2: A forest fire starts in a national park. The message of the fire travels along governmental pathways of communication until, at a high enough level, signals are sent out to various branches of government to bring in fire fighters and national guard to control and put out the fire.

Why is the first example the product of a singular consciousness, but not the second? If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, why not agree it is a duck?

It is like you are screaming, "But where are the NEURONS? Where is the organic matter?" Well, hello, WE ARE IT. Humans, depending on their roles in society, often play the part of neurons for a higher consciousness. We ARE organic matter. In what way does a society fail your test for consciousness? Because you don't see some 60 foot high brain? Are you that f-in limited in your imagination, that you cannot accept that a brain can look anything different from a big ball of wringled gray tissue? That communication can take place in any way other than little sparks from neuron to neuron?

I'm talking about a HIGHER consciousness, not a BIGGER conciousness. You look at the space between people - the fact that people move separately and you can drive a truck between them, and you conclude they CANNOT be part of a singular consciousness. How limited! Do you realize how much space, relatively speaking, is between the subatomic particles that make up an atom? How much space is between the atoms that make up a chemical compound? How much of the human body is really just empty space?

You are like some one saying, "Oh, the earth cannot possibly be conscious. It's all water and dirt and rocks and only a little bit of organic material." Duh, what do you think the human body is? 70% water? Any minerals in the human body? Bingo!

I'm not saying the planet is one big person. You've got to open your mind to the possibility that there are things that may be conscious, but their motives and purposes and desires and ways of thinking are inherently unfathomable because they are just too different. Do you think any cell in your body has any way to fathom that the body itself has a singular sense of consciousness, or do you think the cells just work along feeling like THEY are the end all and be all of consciousness and that the human body is just a big social network wherein the conscious cells ork together for the common good?

I don't have all the answers, but your answers keep reinforcing my belief that you are too close-minded. You have a lot of preconceived notions. No matter how much you try to follow a logical or scientific method, it is not very effective to look through a microscope while wearing blinders.

~psychoblast~


----------



## Enlitx

Psychoblast -

You are simply wrong about how multicellular organisms evolved.  It is not a matter of opinion that is up for grabs, it is a well established principle that a single organism evolved the different organs found in modern animals.  There is all kinds of evidence available.  I have my B.S. in biochemistry, and during my undergraduate education we reviewed multiple basic metabolic pathways that confirm the evolutionary lineage as I have described it.  If different organisms came together you would expect notably different alleles for certain key metabolic enzymes and proteins.  You just don't see this.  There is a mountain of evidence favoring my position.  You are simply wrong on this issue.  

This leads me to believe that you have a very loose grasp on the biological systems in place today.  That is probably why you are able to make such a leap of faith regarding consciousness, I am guessing since you haven't studied the material it is much easier make such broad and unfounded assumptions.  You know just enough to make a hypothesis, but not enough to make an accurate prediction.  This is not a slam on you, just an observation about the ideas you have posted thus far.  

As I have stated, I have my B.S. in biochemistry, I know full well the space between subatomic particles and the nature of their interactions.  I know full well how much water is in the human body and the role of various organic constituents.   That has nothing to do with it.  I am not coming at this from an uneducated standpoint.  Neurons are positioned so that they can work in a somewhat predictable and ordered fashion.  The brain requires complex chemical interactions to perform the functions of consciousness.  Although humans may interact with each other,  it is not the same thing as consciousness as we know it.  Sure, societies may develop certain behaviors, but it is nothing like the consciousness produced by the brain.  Unless you want to define consciousness as something so broad as to strip it of any actual meaning.  

Like I said, trying to equate society with a functioning biological consciousness either does not work or strips consciousness of any real meaning.  There are entire fields dedicated to the patterns of human societies, but these fields aren't titled "higher consciousness".  If you dispute this, explain the attributes of society that mirror human consciousness.  What specifically ties the two together?  From my perspective, consciousness arises from cells that do not possess any self awareness, it is a unique and awe inspiring process.  Social dynamics, while interesting, do not possess the same type of emergent properties.   

I am not close minded, I have simply considered the various options and have chosen what I believe to be true.  I think with a little more training in biochemistry you would come to the same conclusions, since  understanding the enormous complexity of consciousness renders it as something special and not to be transferred to any old thing.


----------



## Serene Imp

*What you want to happen after you die..*

I don't know if anyone else has ever thought about this, or has a plan. But when I go through my suicidal thoughts I tamper with and fix my plans...

When you die, what do you want to happen to you? Get buried, burned, kept in an urn? 

I personally want to be cremated and have 1/2 my ashes mixed in with soil and planted with either a Willow or hazel sapling, and the other 1/2 mixed with the soil around the tree and have ivy planted there. Haven't found exactly where yet but in the woods somewhere. I don't want a huge tombstone sitting in a graveyard someplace, I'd rather have a sad angel statue (like 4-5" tall) near the tree. If possible have her have some of my characteristics in the face, one tattered looking wing, one hand holding a large rose with a long stem with thorns to her heart, the other hand held slightly out as if asking you to take her hand. I want a saying under her... just not sure exactly what yet, I'm thinking "It's only after we've lost everything, that we're free to do anything"

Yeah... so what do you want?


----------



## paranoid android

All i can say is please don't commit suicide if that is what you are thinking of. If you have suicidal thoughts please go see a mental health proffesional about it. Even talking about it can help alot.


----------



## molly897

i dont think about this at all weirdly enough .. what i want to feel: apathy


----------



## paranoid android

I don't really think this is TDS material to be honest so im going to close it for now.


----------



## n3ophy7e

Merging with a thread from TDS.

Mods, I know it's not _precisely_ the same topic, but close enough 
Feel free to unmerge if you wish.


----------



## Serene Imp

paranoid android said:


> All i can say is please don't commit suicide if that is what you are thinking of. If you have suicidal thoughts please go see a mental health proffesional about it. Even talking about it can help alot.



it's nothing like that, when I was (not now though) suicidal I thought about what I wanted after I die, I don't want the normal thing and was wondering if any one else had a unique idea.


----------



## malakaix

I understand what your saying, how do you want to be remembered.. if at all, and how.

I'd prefer to be cremated, and my ashes poured into the ocean or forest.. i'd prefer people make peace with the fact im gone, instead of revisiting a tombstone. But that said.. what will be will be, and i won't be here to care about it anyhow.


----------



## 556m4

I believe that when you die It's almost like a deep sleep that falls the soul of a man or woman when they die, total unconsciousness. Until the end of the world at the Great White throne of Judgement  (Judgement day) where the dead both good and evil are resurrected both body and soul.The dead are judged by Jesus Christ and they either go on to everlasting life into heaven or they are thrown into the lake fire where they are totally destroyed by spiritual death; nonexistence;totally destroyed.
     I get my beliefs from the bible which I believe to be the Word of God.  I do not believe in a place of conscious eternal punishment (hell) for the unsaved this would not make Jesus(whom I believe Is the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob, Jehova, the Lord of Hosts, the Ancient of Days etc etc), a just God for tormenting people for all eternity for a life of sin, because the punishment dosen't fit the crime.  This is just what I believe, It's interesting to see what everybody else believes about life after death, and their perspectives about religion.  I have my theories for everything but I am in no way knocking anybodys belief on what they think will occur.  I derived my beliefs on my own, not through any church or denomination of Christianity.


----------



## k.kat

i believe we are all here to learn, and will keep coming back until we have completed the learning process, then we will return home.

cause & effect
karma

what we go through in life is supposedly chosen by ourselves before we are born as part of what we need to learn while we are here,

 i believe this even though i am a  90% believer in life after death and still need the last 10% to be fulfilled,

if none of it is true and we do just die and that it is the end
 i think it is so cruel what the spiritualists/mediums  do to people,

i do go to the spiritualist church occasionally
and am an avid reader onf spiritual books
even though some people laugh and make a fool of me


----------



## TheAgnostic

orarev said:


> I think we will probably never find out any of life's mystery's such as this one unless religion is removed for ever then we will have more time on trying to solve these questions instead of hoping that a mystical being brought up by our own fear will determine our fate.



I couldn't agree more. If you look back in history you will see that every leap made in science has been challenged or denied by the church.


----------



## malakaix

k.kat said:


> i believe we are all here to learn, and will keep coming back until we have completed the learning process



Pretty much what i've come to understand over the years.


----------



## DocLucid

life is the illusion.  we are already dead, we just think we're alive.

this is the realization that you are nothing and nothing is everything.  before you were born into your body, you were nothing.. but it wasnt really nothing, it was everything.  that nothingness took on the shape of your current form and over the course of it's existence, that form added layers of attachments to itself forming an ego, creating the illusion that you are alive.  but the truth is you are still that nothing, consciousness, you just inhabit a temporary body.  when you die you will return to that "nothing" only to be reborn into another form.

i mean no one can say with pure certainty what happens when you die but im like 99.99% sure on this.


----------



## qwe

> life is the illusion. we are already dead, we just think we're alive.


personally, i know for a fact i am not a philosophical zombie.  you have confirmed some of my deepest suspicions though 

since you are all not really alive, this is a dream.  which means dancing in the street naked is an option


----------



## uncle stinky

I'm using one of Dennett's suggestions here which should give you a pretty clear where I stand on this issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett 
Paraphrasing as I'm too lazy to go and look it up but it goes like this-
To the people who reject the brain and the self being identical, lets say bad luck strikes and you have the misfortune to get a terminal brain cancer. A surgeon arrives with good news, "there is a cure. Science has finally resolved all the problems and we can now simply remove your cancerous brain and transplant in a new one"
Happy with this solution? Your brain is after all not you. I suspect not.

On the wider attempts in all the foregoing trying to screw the inscrutable above, good luck with that.
 If you want some interesting stuff on the actual processes these are interesting reads
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Time-Death-...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282367369&sr=8-3
and
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stiff-Curio...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282367418&sr=1-1


----------



## girlygrrl

. goes back to . to get a GNU computer Avatar ???

Or perhaps . goes to "The Mainframe" for awhile where thoughts become reality instantaneously because they Forgot about "Da Roolz" and weren't "Playing Nice" ??

Or . just realizes that .'s Avatar can stay alive forever if the 0 soul listens to what the 1 soul has to say ?

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=4C4EEA8483A25D20


----------



## Steveywonder

Like many have said, it will be like the 14 billion years before birth.


----------



## User Name Here

Tickle My Pickle said:


> how do you explain ghosts and shit?



They have never been scientifically proven 100%. There is no explanation, not a legitimate one at least. The idea that paranormal things exist is more of a belief than a fact. No one knows if they truly exist or not, but until they prove them to be 100% real, I won't subscribe to the idea that ghosts exist. 

Personally I think it's funny because when I did believe in them, I thought I had paranormal experiences quite often. As the years passed and I began to think about things more logically ("logically" in my opinion), I started wanting more evidence for these things. Eventually I reached a point where I decided to not believe in anything I can't see, hear, feel, taste, or touch for sure and the moment that happened, I stopped "seeing" things. Irony? I think a little bit


----------



## Glow2

User Name Here said:


> Personally I think it's funny because when I did believe in them, I thought I had paranormal experiences quite often. As the years passed and I began to think about things more logically ("logically" in my opinion), I started wanting more evidence for these things. Eventually I reached a point where I decided to not believe in anything I can't see, hear, feel, taste, or touch for sure and the moment that happened, I stopped "seeing" things. Irony? I think a little bit




Exactly...I remember believing in the paranormal. I'd get the chills, and have the feeling of some other worldly presence lurking around me. It was probably my mind's way of entertaining myself. It makes the day more interesting, it's something to think about all the time.

But it's all bullshit. 

IMO when you die, your gone. That's just fine with me!


----------



## sjsheather

You hang out with god in some giant house and all those angels floating around with harps.  You're with your loved ones all day and collectively groove in some kind of perpetual worship of god.  It sounds like hell, which is why most of us cling to life as dearly as we can.


----------



## deez_nuggs

Your Bluelight account might stay logged in if your computer is on..


----------



## JJ-180

In an infinite universe in which infinite numbers of molecules(including those which make up my present physical body)can combine and recombine in an infinite number of permutations I have no doubt that at some point "I" will be physically resurrected. I'll be back, motherfuckers!


----------



## n3ophy7e

^^ That's a cool way to look at it man


----------

