Proof of life after death?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Great Vengeance
Ive been speculating on this idea I had for a while, so perhaps I should post it here.


What are you before you are born? You are dead. One cannot possibly be neither alive nor dead. I believe I have said this once before as an offhand comment and I encountered this argument:

"Death is the condition that follows life." Or something to that effect.

I believe this argument sort of dances around the question, but meh....

Moving on:

The implications of my theory being true, includes logical proof that it is possible to be 'dead' and come into a life. If that is the case, it could very well be that we do go through some cycle of 'rebirth'. It would certainly fit in with what we see throughout nature(cycles everywhere).

So anyways....discuss.

NineCoronas
You have to exist first to die, and at that point you become dead.

Because I can
^ after your dead tho, what happens?

Mindship
If you're spiritually/mystically inclined...
After you are conceived, the soul finds a home in the developing body. It finds greater and greater personal expression after birth and as the person grows up, particularly once mind develops.
When you die, the body and mind end. The soul continues.

If you are a reductionist/materialist/epiphenomenalist...
After you are conceived and born, the body and mind develop.
After death, the body and mind end. Period.

Storm
I accept the possibility of reincarnation. However, so far, real evidence to support it is lacking.

debbiejo
It's interesting to hear little children talk about this subject before they are indoctrinated............

examples that I've heard from an 8 year old:

Where we we before we were here?
I said: Where do you think we came from?
She said: Other bodies?
I said: Why do you think so?
She said: I don't know.

This little girl had never heard of reincarnation before, and I thought it was very interesting.......I never did give her an answer..........I wanted her to think, and not be told what to think......

Other questions shes asked were:


Where do our thoughts come from?
Where do our thoughts go when they leave our heads?

This type of thinking is great for a science field study in yes, quantum physics.............lol

Also, this little girl almost choked to death at a restaurant.....She didn't tell anyone but me that looking at the wall, she started to see a white tunnel of light open up...........of course she was given the Heimlich maneuver........and was then ok..

Blue_Hefner
Originally posted by Because I can
^ after your dead tho, what happens?
You return to atoms, which are either absorbed by an animal, the ground, or air. In a way, you become rain, grass, etc...Then other people eat you,etc.

Great Vengeance
Originally posted by NineCoronas
You have to exist first to die, and at that point you become dead.

What is death, but a state of non-existing?


What were you before you were born? Non-existing.

Admiral Akbar
Death is the termination of life, in order to terminate - something must exist. You cant terminate something that has never existed.

Great Vengeance
Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Death is the termination of life, in order to terminate - something must exist. You cant terminate something that has never existed.

If you want to be technical, yes, but looking deeper than the semantics, death is simply a state of non-existing.


And please somone answer this, if you are not dead before birth, than *what* are you. I dont imagine it is possible to neither exist nor non-exist.

NineCoronas
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
What is death, but a state of non-existing?


What were you before you were born? Non-existing. Death is the state that follows life =P

Great Vengeance
Originally posted by NineCoronas
Death is the state that follows life =P

mad

Admiral Akbar
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
If you want to be technical, yes, but looking deeper than the semantics, death is simply a state of non-existing.


And please somone answer this, if you are not dead before birth, than *what* are you. I dont imagine it is possible to neither exist nor non-exist.

At death he/she is non-existing, true. But they have to go through a process of life before they reach death. To be dead is to no longer live, not productive and no longer in existence. Someone has to live to die. That's the way it works.

Before birth you are simply nothing. It's logical to assume you dont "exist."

Take for example babies. Before the couple have sex they both contain sperm/eggs that contain DNA strands to create life. It doesn't make sense to say the person that will be born from that is "dead" because technically he doesn't exist until the egg and sperm meet.

-I'm not making myself very clear...:/

Mindship
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
And please somone answer this, if you are not dead before birth, than *what* are you. I dont imagine it is possible to neither exist nor non-exist.

I suppose one could say--if you believe in reincarnation--that before you are born to your Next Life, you were dead, having expired from your Previous Life.

But this is throwing a spanner in the box, eh? wink

Taking more of a quantum-mechanical perspective: before you were born you existed as potential (a wave function). Conception occurred (corresponding to observation of the wave function), wherein potentiality became actuality (the wave function collapsed).

Life is a brief interlude of being a discrete/Newtonian entity.

rolling on floor laughing

Lord Urizen
I beleive the fact that "Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only altered in state" is enough reason to beleive in Life after Death.

What are we other than matter and energy? Our bodies and brains are matter, our mind is energy.....neither of this gets destroyed, even when we die.

The only real question is what becomes of our personal memories and identity? Does that cease to exist when we die ?

Admiral Akbar
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I beleive the fact that "Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only altered in state" is enough reason to beleive in Life after Death.

What are we other than matter and energy? Our bodies and brains are matter, our mind is energy.....neither of this gets destroyed, even when we die.

The only real question is what becomes of our personal memories and identity? Does that cease to exist when we die ?

I concur.

Alliance
I disagree. The enegy in your body (mostly heat) dissapates. Your matter decays into the ground.

Your consciousnes is a product of the neural network in your brain, when those cells die, it can no longer be produced. Consciousness ends. memories and identity woudl die with it. Its all just electical impulses.

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Great Vengeance



And please somone answer this, if you are not dead before birth, than *what* are you. I dont imagine it is possible to neither exist nor non-exist.

Metaphysically speaking....an essence of your pre-existence.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Alliance
Your consciousnes is a product of the neural network in your brain, when those cells die, it can no longer be produced. Consciousness ends. memories and identity woudl die with it. Its all just electical impulses. Possibly only part of your consciousness. The part that interacts with the brain which is neural circuitry.......It serves its function for our bodies. But that may not be the whole consciousness....

Alliance
Could you replace some of your pronouns with nouns. I'm confused stick out tongue

Sorry embarrasment

debbiejo
Originally posted by Alliance
Could you replace some of your pronouns with nouns. I'm confused stick out tongue

Sorry embarrasment Good, my job is done here......... cool

OK....our consciousness (that is part of our brains, thoughts,.etc..) might only be part of a larger one.......better??? blink

Arachnoidfreak
Originally posted by debbiejo

Also, this little girl almost choked to death at a restaurant.....She didn't tell anyone but me that looking at the wall, she started to see a white tunnel of light open up...........of course she was given the Heimlich maneuver........and was then ok..

That's a common hallucination due to a lack of oxygenated blood to the brain.

Regret
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
That's a common hallucination due to a lack of oxygenated blood to the brain.

It happens to me at times if the sex is really good devil

Proof that there is life after sex eek!

Alliance
Originally posted by Regret
Proof that there is life after sex eek!

YES! PEOPLE THERE IS HOPE!

but is there life after love?

SORRY! I had to!

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
YES! PEOPLE THERE IS HOPE!

but is there life after love?

SORRY! I had to!

Nah,

Is there sex after love?

Looks around...phew...hope wife didn't see that, would be a few months without wink

Great Vengeance
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I beleive the fact that "Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only altered in state" is enough reason to beleive in Life after Death.

What are we other than matter and energy? Our bodies and brains are matter, our mind is energy.....neither of this gets destroyed, even when we die.

The only real question is what becomes of our personal memories and identity? Does that cease to exist when we die ?

Not really.


Consciousness is the result, of the insanely complicated system called the brain. However, once that system breaks down, consciousness breaks down as well. Though I could be wrong.... no expression

Regret
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Not really.


Consciousness is the result, of the insanely complicated system called the brain. However, once that system breaks down, consciousness breaks down as well. Though I could be wrong.... no expression

Woot, agreed!

If it doesn't break down then why do brain injuries effect it? People that speak of mind, consciousness, thinking... all are speaking about the complex neurological activity that occurs in the brain. I don't believe in anything outside the physical. If there is, it is intertwined with the physical to the point that separation would cause loss to the functioning of both.

Great Vengeance
Originally posted by Regret
Woot, agreed!

If it doesn't break down then why do brain injuries effect it? People that speak of mind, consciousness, thinking... all are speaking about the complex neurological activity that occurs in the brain. I don't believe in anything outside the physical. If there is, it is intertwined with the physical to the point that separation would cause loss to the functioning of both.

Yeah pretty much. Everything that you think or feel, can be explained through science. There doesnt have to be anything more than the physical world... what 'you' are is simply a bundle of perceptions.

Now that still doesnt rule out, that after you die you cannot experience another bundle of perceptions. wink

If there was something beyond the physical world, it would probably be a sort of undefinable life force that is devoid of all meaning, except of giving you the gift of 'life' whatever that may be.

Alliance
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Everything that you think or feel, can be explained through science.

Not really. Science isn't THAT advanced yet. But you're correct in theory and I agree with you.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
There doesnt have to be anything more than the physical world... what 'you' are is simply a bundle of perceptions.
So true. One of the spinoffs of String theory is that we are simply holographic projections imagining our existance.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Regret
Nah,

Is there sex after love?

Looks around...phew...hope wife didn't see that, would be a few months without wink laughing out loud laughing out loud

Regret
Originally posted by debbiejo
laughing out loud laughing out loud

wink

overlord
Well, non of you people will live again. Spirits don't reincarnate, your souls will give new people life but your spirits won't (just imagine babies being born and immediately screaming "HELP ME!! I AM CHARLES BRONSON AND I WAS LOCKED IN YOUR BELLY FOR MONTHS, CALL THE POLICE!!"wink. All your minds and conciousness will stop evolving and growing once your vessel wich supports it has broken down.

Hahaha!! Nobody will like this idea but you are all doomed!! Hahaha!! Only your souls are forever!! Muhahahaha!!!

debbiejo
Originally posted by Regret
wink Let's talk to your little women......... wink

Regret
Originally posted by debbiejo
Let's talk to your little women......... wink

*runs away cowering*

I think the "...and then" is the scariest part, she probably did a bunch of horrific things to him before she got to the "...and then" eek!

Alliance
or your soul just dies with the rest of you.

debbiejo
No no.......energy doesn't die.........It's tortured forever!! wink

Alliance
who says your soul is energy?

debbiejo
Everything IS ENERGY according to quantum physics.........

Alliance
everything REAL is energy.

debbiejo
And that means you too!!

Alliance
yes, but not a spirit/soul

Eis
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Ive been speculating on this idea I had for a while, so perhaps I should post it here.


What are you before you are born? You are dead. One cannot possibly be neither alive nor dead. I believe I have said this once before as an offhand comment and I encountered this argument:

"Death is the condition that follows life." Or something to that effect.

I believe this argument sort of dances around the question, but meh....

Moving on:

The implications of my theory being true, includes logical proof that it is possible to be 'dead' and come into a life. If that is the case, it could very well be that we do go through some cycle of 'rebirth'. It would certainly fit in with what we see throughout nature(cycles everywhere).

So anyways....discuss.
What? So because you are not alive you are dead? Very... logical. You are not dead, you are not alive, you are simply... not. You don't exist.

I do not see logic anywhere in your second paragraph which is ironic since as proof for this illogical argument you use logic.

If you are trying to talk about reincarnation, please, say it in an easier way to comprehend, if you are not trying to talk about that then still, make your point more clear.

Alliance
You are alive before you're born, just an egg missing half the DNA it needs to grow.

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
You are alive before you're born, just an egg missing half the DNA it needs to grow.

So...

Given that a woman has all the eggs she will ever have by the time of her birth, her children are in a sense "living" at that time...

Alliance
they're alive, but so is a bacteria in an even greater sense. I think were using two different defenitons of alive.

Tallis
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Ive been speculating on this idea I had for a while, so perhaps I should post it here.


What are you before you are born? You are dead. One cannot possibly be neither alive nor dead. I believe I have said this once before as an offhand comment and I encountered this argument:

"Death is the condition that follows life." Or something to that effect.

I believe this argument sort of dances around the question, but meh....

Moving on:

The implications of my theory being true, includes logical proof that it is possible to be 'dead' and come into a life. If that is the case, it could very well be that we do go through some cycle of 'rebirth'. It would certainly fit in with what we see throughout nature(cycles everywhere).

So anyways....discuss.

Thats not really life after death. More like life after existense

TheSpinner
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
And please somone answer this, if you are not dead before birth, than *what* are you. I dont imagine it is possible to neither exist nor non-exist.


Those are the only two states that our limited intelligence can discern for now. It does not mean that there could not be another state that is neither. And it is just that our limited collective intelligence is not aware of it yet! or is unable to define it based on the very limited knowledge we currently have! Or it could be that the knowledge we already have, is not true knowledge at all. And therefore it is possible that we have defined some concepts incorrectly. and that hinders our intelligence to detect other possible true concepts. We are aware of the soul, but how much do we really know about it?And of the little we know about it, How much is true and how truly is it understood?

Not being aware of something should never mean that it does not exist.

So my answer to your question would be that I could be neither it is just that I do not have the intelligence to grasp that concept and define it for you. At least not for now.

But I will keep working on it. And hopefully I can get back to you on it before I am dead. Oh well! if I am dead before that, then I may just cease to exist all together or I may just acquire a higher or new knowledge.wink

Alliance
are we aware of the soul? i didnt think we were confused

Storm
And the concept of a soul itself is difficult to define, because there have been so many different ideas as to what it really is.

debbiejo
True. The spirit, soul, energy could be the real us, and the body are only the clothes we decide to wear....Like the Kirlian Cameras seem to show us to be outside our bodies and not just inside them. An energy like field.

Alliance
Originally posted by Storm
And the concept of a soul itself is difficult to define, because there have been so many different ideas as to what it really is.
Exactly why I think that we have yet to define. There is no phyiscal eveidence of a soul and since we really haven't pinned it down, to me it remains more of an emotion.

TheSpinner
Originally posted by Alliance
Exactly why I think that we have yet to define. There is no phyiscal eveidence of a soul and since we really haven't pinned it down, to me it remains more of an emotion.


For something to exist, it does not have to be defined. All things must exist (at least in our thoughts) before we can really even try to define them.

And if you think that it is and emotion or anything else for that matter, then logically you are admitting that it at least exist:In a different form nevertheless that it exists. you just don't have a true definition for it yet.
or at least that: you are aware of it wink

Alliance
No. Existance is a phsical presence. Awareness does not mena existance. You are aware of the images holograms present, even though they do no exist.

TheSpinner
Originally posted by Alliance
No. Existance is a phsical presence. Awareness does not mena existance. You are aware of the images holograms present, even though they do no exist.

So you are saying that the soul is an emotion and that emotions do not exist. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Do our thoughts exist or not? if they do not really exist, they should have no effect on our existence. they should not make it better nor worse. and therefore they should be considered as irrelevant all together. but I think that our thoughts actually exist and that they have made our lives somehow better and somehow worse.

I usually don't limit myself by the definitions we have already made up for things. Because I believe that it may be a hindrance in truly understanding things the way they TRULY are.

"I only believe half of I think "

Alliance
Originally posted by TheSpinner
I usually don't limit myself by the definitions we have already made up for things. Because I believe that it may be a hindrance in truly understanding things the way they TRULY are.
First off, if you wnat to debate a concept, you need to define what that concept is. THis is not a free for all argument. If you don't do this you are unlikely to: adress the topic, concisely adress the topic, and to make real world significance. YOu dont need to use textbook definitons, but if you plan on using your own, you need to define such inconsitancies. YOur personal definitnos, as well as textbook ones, will be up for debate as well.
Originally posted by TheSpinner
So you are saying that the soul is an emotion and that emotions do not exist. Or am I misunderstanding you?
Emotions are not concrete things. I'm saying the soul is an etherial connection that from my experience is percied like an emotion. Its an emotion of being alive, of feeling existance. Emotions are percieved differently by different people. Emotions are no more a state of mind that can easily be altered. Therfore, I'm saying that we dont have evidence of some sort of universal existance.

TheSpinner
Originally posted by Alliance
First off, if you wnat to debate a concept, you need to define what that concept is. THis is not a free for all argument. If you don't do this you are unlikely to: adress the topic, concisely adress the topic, and to make real world significance. YOu dont need to use textbook definitons, but if you plan on using your own, you need to define such inconsitancies. YOur personal definitnos, as well as textbook ones, will be up for debate as well.

.

I Totally agree with you on this part. And why can't my definition be better than anyone else's definition? so many things we think make sense do not make sense at all.

And here is my definition of existence:" If am aware of it then it must exist in one form or another. But it may exist even if I am not aware of it " ( Note: It is a pure one way implication and not at all an equivalence).

PVS
Originally posted by Because I can
^ after your dead tho, what happens?

its a long story, but in the end you become worm shit

debbiejo
*Reads PVS's Autobiography*...............ahhhhhhhhhhh yep!

Alliance
Originally posted by TheSpinner
I Totally agree with you on this part. And why can't my definition be better than anyone else's definition? so many things we think make sense do not make sense at all.

And here is my definition of existence:" If am aware of it then it must exist in one form or another. But it may exist even if I am not aware of it " ( Note: It is a pure one way implication and not at all an equivalence).
Then how do you analyze my hologram analogy?

debbiejo
Explain???.........you're sounding more like me........oh go god stop!!

Alliance
what?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Alliance
what?

Ya, it was the "oh go god stop!!" that stumped me. confused laughing

Alliance
Yeah...me too stick out tongue

debbiejo
Explain it, cause if you can't , I certainly can..........

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by debbiejo
Explain it, cause if you can't , I certainly can..........

eek! I can't explain what you were taking about, and I hope you can, or we are all lost. roll eyes (sarcastic)

debbiejo
Ok, if you think you can, but if you can't I'll give it another try again, though it may be of not, but maybe someone here might appreciate that fact the explanations of Alliance is something of an allegro, but with no destination.....oh yeah, that's not what we're expelling about are we....... wink

Lets quicken it up to go nowhere.........lol

Alliance
Spinner's defenition.
Originally posted by TheSpinner
If am aware of it then it must exist in one form or another. But it may exist even if I am not aware of it"

Part I: "If I am aware of it then it must exist in one form or another."

Holograms are sensory perceptions that are created by artificial projection. They are not real. Also, often the body creates sensory perceptions that are fake, fellings and visions that are not factual, but created in mental spazzes.

Part II: "But it may exist even if I am not aware of it"
Yes.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Alliance
Spinner's defenition.


Part I: "If I am aware of it then it must exist in one form or another."

Holograms are sensory perceptions that are created by artificial projection. They are not real. Also, often the body creates sensory perceptions that are fake, fellings and visions that are not factual, but created in mental spazzes.

Part II: "But it may exist even if I am not aware of it"
Yes. Only the non-sciencetical explanation of it, or old explanation of it.................lol wink

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
Spinner's defenition.
Holograms are sensory perceptions that are created by artificial projection. They are not real.

Somebody explain this to Rimmer...lol

TheSpinner
Originally posted by Alliance


Holograms are sensory perceptions that are created by artificial projection. They are not real. Also, often the body creates sensory perceptions that are fake, fellings and visions that are not factual, but created in mental spazzes.

Yes.


Alliance If Holograms can not exist, then how can you create them( see underlined above).If you are telling me that they are created(see underlined above) then they must either exist or you are lying to me about being able to create them.

Sorry Alliance that was too good to pass up wink

Your confusion about the existence of Holograms is stemming from your unclear understanding of their definition. if they are just false sensations like you say. then we only care about the existence of those false sensations.

You are tell me that something is created and at the same time you are telling me that it does not exist confused :

if it is created then it must exist. and if it does not exist then it is not created.

Alliance
The point is, you percieve an image that is not there. I'm refenceing the physical sensation of seeing the image, not their physical existance.

TheSpinner
Originally posted by Alliance
The point is, you percieve an image that is not there. I'm refenceing the physical sensation of seeing the image, not their physical existance.

But if you perceive the image that is not there. then it must exist just as thought in your mind. So now do you think that our thoughts exist or not?

debbiejo
Yes, and are the fundamental beginnings of creation.

Alliance
The image gives you a sensation, but it a false one. The image does not exist.

debbiejo
thumbup1

Alliance
laughing I would agree with debbie that we only care about the existance of false sensations.

And given my hypothesis, I'd say that no...thoughts are not real. They are only perceptions of reality.

debbiejo
Are you sure?

Mindship
Our thoughts are, in effect, cognitive maps: maps of sensory reality, cognitive reality (metacognition), and--if one is so inclined--spiritual reality (leaving the definition of "reality" open for the moment). The best maps are built from careful observation and critical thinking so that they are, at least, reliable if not valid.

TheSpinner
Originally posted by Alliance
laughing I would agree with debbie that we only care about the existance of false sensations.

And given my hypothesis, I'd say that no...thoughts are not real. They are only perceptions of reality.


And do those perceptions of reality exist or not? wink



My Friend our thoughts do exist and it is just that somebody's definition of existence in textbooks is wrong. Now we have more knowledge and we are more intelligent and we can have a better definition for existence. or is the the earth still flat ?


If our thoughts did not exist. then they should not have any effect on us just like anything else that does not exist. And if they don't have any effects on us then they must be irrelevant to us and we should be able to live without them. Can you? because I can't, but then again, I on the hand truly believe that they do exist.


That is why I say I do not limit myself to definitions already established by someone else a long time ago. Therefore you should help me sell my new definition of existence and we may just benefit more from it in the future. wink

"If am aware of it then it must exist in one form or another, But it can exist even if I am not aware of it"(TheSpinner)

Alliance
I think thoughts don't exist here's why. There is pretty extensive research done on neural mapping and pathways etc. We can study in depth neural impulses, but to my knowledge no reseach hase been done showing how the physical mechanics translates into etherial sensations, for example love, or hate. The pathway and structure are there, but we dont really know what the thought is. There is some sort of higher function in the brain that can take all the impulses and neurotransmitters and create these thoughts. Wed odn't understand that.

My friend spinner, a perception is not a concrete thing. Saying you have a perception and saying that it is a concrete thing are two very different statements. Not everyhing you percieve is fact. YOu still have the perception, that doesnt mean that your perception is an accurate description of reality.

AND, might i add, that you do not have the power to overwrite centuries of academia on your mere whim, just to prove your point. Words have defintinos for reasons, so that everyone can understand what each one means. This is not to say that definitions don't change, but mreery that you do not have the power to change them.

Things that are not real can have many powerful effect on someone. For example, many mythological figures associated with certian holidays are not real. You percieve them all the time...and when you are young enough, you can't tell the difference, later in life, you gain the power to realize that what you percieve is not always fact.

TheSpinner
Originally posted by Alliance
This is not to say that definitions don't change, but mreery that you do not have the power to change them .




If you believe that something TRULY does not exist then it should not have any effects on you. or Should it? Thoughts exist. your definition of existence is deficient whether you want to admit to it or not. being in the the text books does not necessary make it ABSOLUTE TRUE. And if it is not ABSOLUTE TRUE then it is a fair candidate for change.

If you stick strictly to the definition you will never see that there is something wrong with it.

Sometimes you have to step away from things to get a better perspective on them: Example If your nose is against the wall of a building, you will never be able to tell how big that building really is.


and You are right! I may not have any powers to change invalid Definitions but I certainly have some power to uncover the invalidity of some of them. It is just that we may not be ready for it.

I really Enjoyed the whole run with you and I have learned many things along the way.

Thanks Alliance!

Alliance
np smile

debbiejo
Biochemistry is only one field. There are many others to which we my understand when we put them all together......... wink

Alliance
what are these other fields?

I thought I was already using a gestalt view.

debbiejo
They are all the other science fields and studies........If they were more combined we might have more answers......

Alliance
Modern science is much more integrated than you think:

I mentioned biophysics, biochemistry, molecualr biology, cellular biology, physicaology, neurology, and psychology in my original argument.

Biochem is just the common language of biological science...its like latin.

debbiejo
And Quantum physics???

Alliance
didn't really pull that one...did i mention electons?

Mindship
< casting a vote for quantum cosmology as a kick-ass field. cool

But seriously, folks, a gestalt approach would probably involve things more like metaphysics, ontology or even some aspects of metatheory and transpersonal psychology, the latter already tending to integrate the physical, biological, mental and spiritual levels of reality from a developmental POV.

And if we're gonna integrate, where does Scientific Method fit in?

Alliance
There is a difference between integrating everything that comes to mind and integrating useful sciences. Things like transpersonal psychology don't have a place in science. They are untestable. Integrating railroad mechanics will not help me study the human brain.

If you look, all the disciplines I mentioned were at least somewhat scientific, all using the method. Psychology is a little soft for me.

Gay Guy
Originally posted by TheSpinner
If you believe that something TRULY does not exist then it should not have any effects on you. or Should it? Thoughts exist. your definition of existence is deficient whether you want to admit to it or not. being in the the text books does not necessary make it ABSOLUTE TRUE. And if it is not ABSOLUTE TRUE then it is a fair candidate for change.

If you stick strictly to the definition you will never see that there is something wrong with it.

Sometimes you have to step away from things to get a better perspective on them: Example If your nose is against the wall of a building, you will never be able to tell how big that building really is.


and You are right! I may not have any powers to change invalid Definitions but I certainly have some power to uncover the invalidity of some of them. It is just that we may not be ready for it.

I really Enjoyed the whole run with you and I have learned many things along the way.

Thanks Alliance!

wacko

Alliance
laughing That wasnt helpful messed. What did you mean?

Mindship
Originally posted by Alliance
There is a difference between integrating everything that comes to mind and integrating useful sciences. Things like transpersonal psychology don't have a place in science. They are untestable. Integrating railroad mechanics will not help me study the human brain.
Actually, transpersonal psychology does have a place with regard to the philosophy of science and scientific method. It has its roots in the perennial philosophy, mysticism and Western science and asks how aspects might be testable, ie, what are the limits of science/scientific method? Certainly, one can conduct experiments in the individual disciplines and see if the results are consistent with the overall paradigm.

Psychology is a little soft for me.
Understood. You must really "love" meditation/mysticism then. wink

Still, my main point was this (perhaps I could've phrased it better): Is Scientific Method necessary in constructing an overall, integrating paradigm? If not, why? If so, how?

Alliance
laughing You're talking to a scientist.

Mindship
Originally posted by Alliance
laughing You're talking to a scientist.

I figured. Biologist?

When I first joined KMC, I had a similar discussion with the ever-stimulating Sir Whirly (he held a similar stance regarding psychology). It was quite heated at points but a lot of fun.

BTW, my field is not exactly alien to science (though you have made your feelings known about it. wink )

Alliance
Molecular.

Your're a PSYCHOLOGIST?!?eek!

Mindship
Big surprise, I'm sure.

Actually, I was also considering astronomy, but the dept where I went to school was limited...plus, I didn't want to have to keep pulling all-nighters.

Alliance
I dunno.

Don't take my phychology insults personally. I'm a radical when it comes to this. A lot of phsychological experiments that I have studied lack mechanisms, controls, and the elimination of other variables. Thus I have a problem with it sometimes. The parts of phsychology that I consider scientifically accurate, I feel are just a small baby step from what is already included in biology.

...but again, this is my very-unmainstream view.

Mindship
Originally posted by Alliance
Don't take my phychology insults personally.

I don't. smile Jeez, if we all agreed on stuff, how boring would that be. Plus, debates with very different POVs are great exercise for the mind. I know for myself, it's an excellent way to prevent a myopic perspective.

Alliance
but it clearly enables a diopic one

Mindship
laughing out loud Then we need more debaters.

Alliance
fear

Atlantis001

Regret

Mindship

Regret
My post was in response to the ideas put forth in Atlantis' statements. I apologize if I am not on topic in it. My statements have nothing to do with life after death, but I do believe that given the forum this question is posed the answer should follow the scientific evidences fairly closely while speculation occurs around the known facts.

Atlantis001

Atlantis001

Mindship

Vinny Valentine
Originally posted by NineCoronas
You have to exist first to die, and at that point you become dead.

Exactly.

Regret

Atlantis001

Regret

Mindship
The thing about the 'essence-preceeds-existence' paradigm is that consciousness / spirit / mind are Not synonymous/interchangeable.

In this paradigm, Consciousness is The Ground of Being. It is The absolute frame of reference from which all else is explained/described. It's like with our current, physics-based paradigm which sees 'energy'--in the broadest sense of the term--as the Ground of Being, giving rise to space, time and matter. Thus, 'What kind of energy?' is a meaningless question because we get to that Language/Logic No-man's land layered upon an ineffable experience. We may end up with Paradox or Circular Reasoning. It's worse than trying to describe the experience of color to someone born blind.

'Consciousness,' like 'energy,' simply becomes a tag whose function is to allow dialogue, not replace the Experience (God I hope all that mumbo-jumbo was clear).

In any event: Through involution, Consciousness becomes spirit, mind and matter, spirit, mind and matter being different stages/forms of Consciousness to which we can ascribe consensually noted characteristics. But 'Consciousness Itself' remains an ineffable experience.

I would imagine that, given this paradigm, there is something which survives biological death, as what dies is merely a figure in that Ultimate Ground, the Ground Itself (Consciousness, or 'God') being Infinite/Eternal.

Regret
But still, how does this impact "proof" of life after death? I can say that the spirit exists prior to mortal existence, and once it is in the body it is impossible to separate the spirit from the body. Thus using the same paradigm I have as much "proof" of life after death as you do.

To my understanding you are merely using a different tag with the same argument. It is still a simple "spirit" type of statement. You have just placed different words around the same thing.

Atlantis001

Regret

Mindship
Originally posted by Regret
1. But still, how does this impact "proof" of life after death? I can say that the spirit exists prior to mortal existence, and once it is in the body it is impossible to separate the spirit from the body. Thus using the same paradigm I have as much "proof" of life after death as you do.

2. To my understanding you are merely using a different tag with the same argument. It is still a simple "spirit" type of statement. You have just placed different words around the same thing.

1. I agree, and I should've made my reasons for posting that paradigm more clear. I never meant to present it as proof, only as an alternative POV, wherein the possibility of life-after-death is not necessarily rejected on principle.

2. Again, the point of my post was just to present a perspective where consciousness, spirit and mind Are differentiated. I agree that from a strictly empirical POV, the 'spirit type of statement' remains in force.

Regret
Originally posted by Mindship
1. I agree, and I should've made my reasons for posting that paradigm more clear. I never meant to present it as proof, only as an alternative POV, wherein the possibility of life-after-death is not necessarily rejected on principle.

2. Again, the point of my post was just to present a perspective where consciousness, spirit and mind Are differentiated. I agree that from a strictly empirical POV, the 'spirit type of statement' remains in force.

Makes sense. But, unless I am missing something (which may of course be the case), it still does nothing for the proof of life after death question. It is referencing a point of view that is not ours to hold. It is like saying "it is possible that we are just the brain in a vat, therefor, if this reality ends it is not necessary for the brain in the vat to come to an end." (Sorry for those that are sick of this metaphor, I know the Matrix has beat that one to death wink ) A possible belief on the subject of reality does not lead to proof of life after death.

Mindship
Originally posted by Regret
(Sorry for those that are sick of this metaphor, I know the Matrix has beat that one to death wink )
Hey, the Matrix itself is a terrific metaphor. I love some of the questions Morpheus asks, many reminding me of the questions I've asked people in my lucid dreams (and getting less clear answers).

A possible belief on the subject of reality does not lead to proof of life after death.
I 100% concur. Exploring the implications of other POVs is fun and great mental exercise, but proof it is not.

Atlantis001
Originally posted by Regret
You are committing a dualist error in the attempt to separate consciousness from the physiological functioning of the brain.

I am not attemping to separate consciousness from the physical functioning of the brain. I have specified this before.

The problem is to find what is this physical mechanism from where consciousness emerges from.

Consciousness is not a physical phenomenon, we just have psychologic and philosophic approaches about its nature, so defining it physically is no easy task.


About free will, as long as you consider it to be a illusion I think there is no problem considering consciousness algorithmic.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.