The Proof of What Happens To Us After Death and the Subsequent denial of it.

originally posted by: olddognewtricks
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

"Zing!" Good one.

I am talking about hard rigorous science like what is done in a lab. You and I can discourse all day. We will get nowhere closer to an answer to anything about the world we live in. Somebody utilizing the scientific method every day in a lab, however, is another story. That person may not come up with all the answers in one go. But they will come up with something that will actually take us one step closer.

Well, LesMis startled me a bit with his remark that we have free will, but no choice in not having free will … Discussion on ATS can sometimes be very eye-opening, given you actually have eyes to see things ;-)

LesMis, I have been wanting to discuss these statements from you - having thought a bit more about them, and finally getting a chance to.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Tell that to a dying man, cancer-striken, body near-hollow. "Hey don't worry, it's a psychic-experience." This is evil stuff here.

I know you're not evil, bb. It is only what I imagine when I read your words.

On the surface one could certainly surmise that your insistence that we are just the physical body and that it rots at death, is the less sensitive notion between yours and my posts.

But since you said these things, I felt into them more to consider further what you are getting at. I understand that you figure I have some kind of aversion to the physical body-mind because I speak so much about transcending its limits. However, you also tend to lump me in with the general "search to ascend out of this realm" traditions because this world is viewed as real low in the light spectrum, various cosmologies, etc.

I have never once posted anything that suggests we should seek to escape life. On the contrary, I always talk about free participation and a full embrace of life, with real energy and attention, and as the whole body-mind. If I talk about recognizing the Truth, it is always in the context of where we stand now. You must know this by now.

But I do understand your presumption that would have been likely true if someone was looking to promote ideas of escapism. Obviously, such ideas are anti-life, and are especially prevalent in the Eastern mystical searches. They are partly a product of how difficult life was (and still is) in India, but especially going way back. So getting out of life was promoted heavily. In the West, we are much more bound by materialism. But this is inherently no more sensitive.

It really depends on how much we feel into our actual reality. What I have spoken about in terms of recognizing the truth of our actual situation, always promotes this same matter - to love, feel, intelligently inspect what is our actual situation here, release our myths, beliefs, pre-conceptions, etc.; notice where we are not being in relationship to life; study and apply science when it is called for, etc., etc.

In terms of the dying, of course, I temper what I may say to anyone, based on their condition and background. It is what they are about, not any agenda of my own. They simply need to feel loved and relaxed as much as possible to go through the final release of the body-mind. And to answer one of your earlier questions, yes, it is obvious when the subtle body-mind has released the physical counterpart during the vigil.

So yes, sensitivity is a key to relating rightly to the dying - as it is in all walks of life.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Nonsense, bb. I hope I never die in your company.

Right, I agree. My first thought when reading this, was you should certainly hope not, given I suspect I am much older than you.

Plus this is, according to you, your first and only life, so I do hope it is a very long and happy one!

Regardless, we will be back!

A lot of people just don't like the idea that life is ultimately meaningless.

originally posted by: AllIsOne

How is the ability to think not "action reaction? You try and think of something (action)…

a reply to: Entreri06

I'm sorry for not being able to express myself clearly. The thing that you state so casually "… and think of something" is exactly my point. The human ability to think of something at will should not be possible in a world only governed by atoms, because there is no "prime cause" for that thought to occur.

Yes, neurons need to fire, but WHAT triggers those events? Are you saying that thoughts are just random events generated by the neurons themselves, or is there a "governor" in the system?

To answer your other question: There are plenty of clinical examples where a patient is brain dead with no electrical activity in the brain (no neurons are able to fire), but after she recovers there are vivid memories related to that time with zero brain activity.

The point of all that thinking is and has always been to get booty and create other little people who will think of awsome was to get more booty. Every thing else is over flow from over doing it. :p

And no there are no examples of nurons not fireing and people thinking. The brain is a crazy thing. Time is irrelevant to it. You could have had whatever experience you had at the moment of waking. Not during "brain death" which has never been truely confirmed with NDE's . Add that to the fact they are recreatable their Gforces ( pilots experience NDEs when passing out in training) and the divine experience can be recreated with beaming alpha waves into the brain. I think it's far more likely that our minds play tricks on us the the alternative.

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: AllIsOne

How is the ability to think not "action reaction? You try and think of something (action)…

a reply to: Entreri06

I'm sorry for not being able to express myself clearly. The thing that you state so casually "… and think of something" is exactly my point. The human ability to think of something at will should not be possible in a world only governed by atoms, because there is no "prime cause" for that thought to occur.

Yes, neurons need to fire, but WHAT triggers those events? Are you saying that thoughts are just random events generated by the neurons themselves, or is there a "governor" in the system?

To answer your other question: There are plenty of clinical examples where a patient is brain dead with no electrical activity in the brain (no neurons are able to fire), but after she recovers there are vivid memories related to that time with zero brain activity.

The point of all that thinking is and has always been to get booty and create other little people who will think of awsome was to get more booty. Every thing else is over flow from over doing it. :p

And no there are no examples of nurons not fireing and people thinking. The brain is a crazy thing. Time is irrelevant to it. You could have had whatever experience you had at the moment of waking. Not during "brain death" which has never been truely confirmed with NDE's . Add that to the fact they are recreatable their Gforces ( pilots experience NDEs when passing out in training) and the divine experience can be recreated with beaming alpha waves into the brain. I think it's far more likely that our minds play tricks on us the the alternative.

I gather you can't answer my question regarding the "prime cause" of thought? It ain't always booty … ;-)

If we were the product of purely random and mechanistic processes, we would not even have a discussion about the afterlife, because it wouldn't even cross our minds (as a side point, it's debatable whether we would even have a mind).

We would be hard wired to do certain things only, that had to do with the strict necessities of life. Anything strange to that would simply not occur to us. We'd live our (relatively) short and very limited lives happily without any thought of the afterlife. Any philosophy as a matter of fact would be something very foreign to us, and if somehow ideas came to us, we'd brush them away not understanding what they mean.

To me however, this is a moot discussion: there would be no ideas, creative imagination, language, and not even the most basic form of human life (whatever that may look like in the absence of thought), because there's no such mechanism in nature that generates intelligent and orderly systems out of nothing. Evolution by random processes of highly organized life forms with all the information that they imply? Statistically IMPOSSIBLE. Zero is a high number to compare to.

That apart, the very fact that we have the notion of a soul, the afterlife

The afterlife would be the continuation of the soul's life. The soul is alive in us (it's the principle that forms or in-forms our body) but is a different substance than the body. The soul has the knowledge or intuition that it will survive the body, and that's where all its anguish is coming from. The drama is that the soul wants the body to be alive together with it, like it was intended from the beginning (ever wondered why people want to be happy and how many non-biological variables that involves? We should be happy with a LOT less). The very fact that the afterlife is a NAGGING idea even for people who say they don't believe in it, is a sign that there's something in that idea that resonates with us all, and that is a powerful argument. It's NAGGING, you like it or not, and it will nag you more as you grow older. You shouldn't be freaking bothered by the thought if you had no soul, because that would be an idea that wouldn't resonate with you (supposing you even resonated to ideas at all lol).

a reply to: cipango
A very interesting post - and welcome!

a reply to: bb23108

Most of us here are locked into the lower mind and are constantly distracted by the physical world via the five senses

The lower mind, distracted, always gets in the way of fun.

Study some mysticism.

And practical manipulation of the physical through energy/magick techniques, even more fun. Thanks bb23108 for your contributions to this thread.

a reply to: Entreri06

The definition of faith is beleiving in some thing against all logic

Not so oh wise one. Take this for what its worth.

en.wikipedia.org...

Faith is defined as belief, confidence or trust in a person, object, religion, idea or view despite the absence of proof.[1] Faith does not necessarily involve the abandonment of reason, but acknowledges more or less consciously the fact that a proof is not possible in a given context.

No need to abandon reason.

As to logic

en.wikipedia.org...

Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logike)[1] is the use and study of valid reasoning

As to "valid"

(of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.

Your claim that the definition of faith is believing in some thing against all logic doesn't really hold much water.

a reply to: Entreri06

All the "crystals are magic" y"you just gotta uncalsify your adrenal glad" garbage comes from one book in the 60s or 70s.

Do you have a name for this one book or the name of an individual from the 60/70's that bothers you so much

a reply to: Entreri06

Evolution is a done deal, proven fact

Ok...and then you shoot yourself in the head with a "hive-mind" LOL. but you throwing in the word "quantum" makes it scientific.

IMHO that would more elude to a quantum hive mind we peeled off and returned to

a reply to: bb23108

"Yep, we cannot get an x-ray of you, Mr. Spirit, so you can't exist! You can go now. Next! Miss Spirit over here! You are sure cute! Oh dear, no x-ray came out. Sorry, but you can't exist either!"

Yeah...and how do the scientific materialists account for any Darwinian mechanism for Phantom Pain experienced by most amputees. Where is the evolutionary gain in this?

a reply to: Entreri06

secadian rythmes

Slow down tiger, your making it difficult to be understood

hint (not) "circadian rhythm"

a reply to: Entreri06

Science took us to the moon in less then a century of belief. What did 100k years of religion and mysticism get us? Wars, atrocities,

Not that Science is useless but, how in all honesty do you ignore that its science that gives warmongers the tools to fight war and commit atrocities? Its not some miracle coming out of a holy book that creates the deadly effect of a bomb or bullit.

a reply to: olddognewtricks

I starred you ...however

Philosophy logic etc was developed before science

I think a cave man who had no formalized language after tripping and hurting his knee applied certain salves and leaves to alleviate the damage/pain. That is science (experimentation and testable hypothesis) Philosophy came later when they had time to ponder the bigger picture.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If you were to peel away all that you don't think you are and were to finally reveal yourself after all this talk, all this complaining and all this mere promising, what would be left? I'd love to meet it, this little "you".

Peel away the layers of your body, and where will I find your thoughts, your dreams, your opinions, your personality, your love, your hate, your contempt, your desires, your pain, your memories, your poetry. You know – the things that make you LesMis. But are these physical? Are they your body? Do you identify more as your physical body or your non-physical thoughts? Kindly explain.

What if we looked at this way:
Your body, today, is completely different than the one you had when you were, say, 13 years old. It's actually different than it was yesterday and will be quite different 20 years from now. It's larger, and your brain is larger too. It's getting older, things are different. The cells that make up our body are constantly dying and regenerating, and while the prevailing idea is that brain cells don't regenerate, recent studies in fact have shown the opposite is true. Neurogenesis in areas that control memory and learning. So if your physical body (the objective self) is forever changing, how do "you" still identify with it? In other words, how does the subjective self (little you?) remain constant? How is LesMis still LesMis? The person, not the body. Or do you reject the person? The self?

"You don't know", "you can't know", "you have no clue", is all you can tell me, yet like everyone else is unable to explain how or why this is the case.

Well, you have shown an unwillingness to consider the fact that the true reality is well beyond our perception of it. This is denial.

Yes, it's comforting to think we know, and that we have the answers. But it is an illusion. I know you won't accept this, though.

Thing is - we don't know what we are, or what it is we're doing here. We don't even know what gravity is, what the universe is, or what life is. What it is to exist, then not.

Do you think that's air you're breathing?

a reply to: olddognewtricks

I am talking about hard rigorous science like what is done in a lab

Somebody utilizing the scientific method every day in a lab, however, is another story

So these "hard scientists" dont take a break to have a # in the toilet like us mere mortals? They dont get swayed onto what to study or what is allowed to become "mainsteam"?

You do realize that studies are started after going through committees and that these labs of yours are funded by profit driven corporations who want results that can be turned into a commodity. Or do you think they have your best interests in mind or are searching for that ever elusive cure for cancer?

And take us one step closer to what? A more effective nuclear weapon or weapon delivery system? Remember that scientists are not mandated to study ethics 101 before pursuing whatever hard science they major in. I think you secretly like to put your scientist on some pedestal, much like religionists do to their god of their own choosing.

originally posted by: swarm303
No no no,

Death is outside our perception limits. Exactly like there is no concept explanation for singularity (physics inside black holes) and even not explanation for "gravity" which strongly depends each other. Our science still lacks to explain the very fundamentals of our existence.

Even reality has no existence, because there is no proof for you that even the outside world exists. Everything you experience is just electronical neuronal activity inside your brain. Given stimulus through organs conntected to it. but the actual process of what your eyes is seeing is a picture produced by the brain. We will never even be close to grab anything what is "reality" by design.

The next physical dimension added to our 4D world is the self dimension. This means everything experienced "outside" is stongly influenced from the individual "inside".

"Science" is build around consensus between different individuals giving acceptance to test designs prooving a fundamental theory. The individual "self" is not a part of "science". Therefore discussing "death" (a 100% subjective experience) cannot be discussed with "science" because its missing the dimension. Its a singularity.

Find my a scientist explaining a black hole and I find you one explaining death.

Welcome!

Yes, and regarding your description of not knowing reality - that picture that the brain creates as to what an object looks like, is also not a picture of how the apparent object may appear currently, because by the time we receive the image, the object could have changed, even significantly. In other words we are recalling a memory of the apparent object.

So we never directly experience the object, nor even in the moment - we are perceiving a memory of the apparent object.

originally posted by: AllIsOne

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: AllIsOne

How is the ability to think not "action reaction? You try and think of something (action)…

a reply to: Entreri06

I'm sorry for not being able to express myself clearly. The thing that you state so casually "… and think of something" is exactly my point. The human ability to think of something at will should not be possible in a world only governed by atoms, because there is no "prime cause" for that thought to occur.

Yes, neurons need to fire, but WHAT triggers those events? Are you saying that thoughts are just random events generated by the neurons themselves, or is there a "governor" in the system?

To answer your other question: There are plenty of clinical examples where a patient is brain dead with no electrical activity in the brain (no neurons are able to fire), but after she recovers there are vivid memories related to that time with zero brain activity.

The point of all that thinking is and has always been to get booty and create other little people who will think of awsome was to get more booty. Every thing else is over flow from over doing it. :p

And no there are no examples of nurons not fireing and people thinking. The brain is a crazy thing. Time is irrelevant to it. You could have had whatever experience you had at the moment of waking. Not during "brain death" which has never been truely confirmed with NDE's . Add that to the fact they are recreatable their Gforces ( pilots experience NDEs when passing out in training) and the divine experience can be recreated with beaming alpha waves into the brain. I think it's far more likely that our minds play tricks on us the the alternative.

I gather you can't answer my question regarding the "prime cause" of thought? It ain't always booty … ;-)

Yes it is... Every decision you make can be traced right back to a few base instincts. Sex, hunger and territorialism. EVERYTHING else is just by products of social evolution that sprang from those base few. I don't know what you mean by prime thought exactly (prob because it's some BS spiritualism stuff that isn't an actual thing).

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: AllIsOne

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: AllIsOne

How is the ability to think not "action reaction? You try and think of something (action)…

a reply to: Entreri06

I'm sorry for not being able to express myself clearly. The thing that you state so casually "… and think of something" is exactly my point. The human ability to think of something at will should not be possible in a world only governed by atoms, because there is no "prime cause" for that thought to occur.

Yes, neurons need to fire, but WHAT triggers those events? Are you saying that thoughts are just random events generated by the neurons themselves, or is there a "governor" in the system?

To answer your other question: There are plenty of clinical examples where a patient is brain dead with no electrical activity in the brain (no neurons are able to fire), but after she recovers there are vivid memories related to that time with zero brain activity.

The point of all that thinking is and has always been to get booty and create other little people who will think of awsome was to get more booty. Every thing else is over flow from over doing it. :p

And no there are no examples of nurons not fireing and people thinking. The brain is a crazy thing. Time is irrelevant to it. You could have had whatever experience you had at the moment of waking. Not during "brain death" which has never been truely confirmed with NDE's . Add that to the fact they are recreatable their Gforces ( pilots experience NDEs when passing out in training) and the divine experience can be recreated with beaming alpha waves into the brain. I think it's far more likely that our minds play tricks on us the the alternative.

I gather you can't answer my question regarding the "prime cause" of thought? It ain't always booty … ;-)

Yes it is... Every decision you make can be traced right back to a few base instincts. Sex, hunger and territorialism. EVERYTHING else is just by products of social evolution that sprang from those base few. I don't know what you mean by prime thought exactly (prob because it's some BS spiritualism stuff that isn't an actual thing).

I first thought that I didn't explain myself clearly, but I see now …

Bye, have fun in your world.