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

originally posted by: bb23108
One example would be that your attention moves beyond mere association with the brain-based conscious mind of this physical world into the unconscious, and you recollect vivid memories of being associated with a different body-mind, say from the seventeenth century.

The experience is such that you are certain in your feeling that the one you are now, in terms of this higher mind and attention that you are experiencing these memories with, was also associated with a different physical body, vividly seen in the unconscious psyche.

You also began to notice various aspects of this past lifetime, such as particular books on the shelves, and some papers on a desk you find yourself currently writing on. After a bit, you recognize yourself as Rene Descartes!

Various pieces of the puzzle fall into place in how his ideas back then, and then other lives, and finally you, as LesMis, come together as a convincing whole, a continuum of the same individuated being, during this profound visionary experience.

Suddenly your phone rings and you return to your normal waking consciousness, but with a vivid recollection of all of this.

So what is your likely conclusion about this?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I would doubt it immediately, based on the fact that I am not Descartes and I am not from the 17th century.

Right, clearly that is the case now, but what if the experience overwhelmed you and it was as I described to you? That you could very vividly see in your unconscious that multiple lifetimes linked you to your current one. Would this change your rationalism?

The inquiry was based on you having this experience, not just categorically dismissing it.

We won't know where that energy went because we will cease to be. I accept that. I exist therefore I am.

Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1828-1882)


Sudden Light

I HAVE been here before,
But when or how I cannot tell:
I know the grass beyond the door,
The sweet keen smell,
The sighing sound, the lights around the shore.

You have been mine before,—
How long ago I may not know:
But just when at that swallow's soar
Your neck turned so,
Some veil did fall,—I knew it all of yore.

Has this been thus before?
And shall not thus time's eddying flight
Still with our lives our love restore
In death's despite,
And day and night yield one delight once more?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

Neuroscientists are comfortable with the notion of human thoughts asemergent systems, since the confluence that brings thoughts into physical existence are not at all similar to thoughts or reducible to components that can then be examined to "locate" the thoughts within the collective itself. This might be a niche that most other folks haven't kept up with, but this is critical to my own ongoing research, so I am up on the latest research and responsible thought concerning this small slice of science. My point is that the experts in neuroscience embrace thoughts as emergent physical holons.

Interesting ideas. I too have been keeping up on the literature, and naturally I prefer the embodied and embedded approach to cognition as opposed to the more popular computational theory of mind. I find it has greater explanatory power and scope, not to mention empirical validation. And if it turns out to be the better theory than the computational approach (which I think it is), it will fundamentally alter all we've ever thought about mind. Keep an eye on it, as it's gaining momentum in psychology, neuroscience, linguistics and AI research, and you may have to defend your own theories against it. Nonetheless, I foresee an exciting few decades in the cognitive sciences.

With science debunking itself from decade to decade - generally as a result of new and/or improved observation technologies - I'd be uncomfortable with relying on empiricism when declaring the nature of reality to be anything other than an evolving revelation. That's why I don't limit my examination to what I can see, touch, taste, smell, or reproduce in simulation. The nature of information (not recorded data, but I'm assuming that you agree that there's a difference) is not perceptible by human beings or their technologies - at the moment. That doesn't mean that information doesn't exist as an environmental presence. Precedent does affect the "mechanics" of material reality, otherwise we have to look for gods to explain why electrons look and act like electrons and an atom can be counted on to remain what kind of atom it is. Also, what do you think it is that allows you to remember anything? And if you think it's "memory cells" then where is the "ghost" in each memory cell that teams up with all the other little ghosts in all your other memory cells to make it possible for you to tie your shoes in the morning?

I know the latest and greatest theories concerning a competitive scramble for cognitive dominance (Professor Susan Greenfield seems to be the thought leader along these lines) but no one's been able to even suggest how all of these protein clusters can possess the sapience necessary to configure and reconfigure in real time to adequately respond to a nuanced and sophisticated conversation when the most advanced IA programs fail miserably at managing the art of riding in a subway during rush hour. Unless you're suggesting that proteins are conscious and that they hold really quick staff meetings from instant to instant to decide as a collective which synaptic sub-assembly will take the helm and be the person for whatever instant it is that is being addressed, then you haven't got a clue concerning why you're not a complete hulk of disjointed twitches and spasms right now

It's easy to just deny everything (calling it ignorance) but there's a ramification structure that persists without acknowledgment if that's what you do. Theoretical science isn't applied science. Applied science is janitorial in nature. It doesn't and it cannot lead. Hitting a cell assembly with a probe is like cutting apart a brain to find thought tucked inside somewhere. It's just an extension of Victorian era scientism.

As for an emergentist theory of mind, in literal terms, I see nothing of the sort emerging. Unlike neuroscientists, who should stick to describing the brain, I am uncomfortable with this theory when it is applied to mind. What we call mind or thoughts in common vernacular have not nor cannot be shown to emerge from the complex physical structure of the body. At no point does our direct examinations of a human being deviate to some independent property or other, a "locus of thought" and I personally cannot get around that hurdle. If anything, such ideas lead to a faculty psychology not unlike phrenology.

Actually, you should read that book I link for you. Neuroscientists research what the brain does. Thoughts are generated by the brain. Thoughts are what the human brain does. I don't see the disconnect. I'm not doing philosophy here.

In my own admittedly nominalist understanding, any sort of "emergent" attribute or property should not be abstracted apart from the object it is a property of. When I examine a property of "mind" in a human being, I take a look at my own actions and find I am not examining any mind qua mind, but am still examining the human being. In order to avoid this tiny paradox, much to my dismay, I have had to go against the entire premise of the cognitive revolution, while at the same time repudiating behaviourism.

The emergent system isn't a noumenal abstract. A tornado is an emergent system. So is biological life. Look up Emergence. It's not an exotic notion by any means.

No. The soul is pre-existent, where as the brain-authored information set is an emergent response to a survival requirement that the cell DNA dictates cannot actively address. This does not predate the brain, but is configured and "launched" as a response by the brain. That said, if this data set knows that it exists (as the human data sets do) then it simply does, since this capacity for conceptual abstraction can certainly be appreciated as a material realm survival advantage.

I have difficulty with your notion of humans as "data sets". Data sets can be put into other data sets, and we can add as much data as we want to them. We cannot do the same with humans. But that's the old empiricist in me talking.

I didn't say that the human mind is like residual data sets. It's not. That said, it is still an information collective in its physical structure. Since it is brain authored, the data sets that comprise the mind are not open to entanglement with environmentally emergent data sets (residual data sets) or those data sets authored by a different brain (someone else's mind). This has to do with the mechanics of physical existence (Identity) and the combination of historical and relative context that establishes Identity, but that's a very different discussion. One brain creates one mind, and when that brain dies, that's it for any further development for that mind. It persists, but it has only the data set collective that its authoring brain created over the course of its own existence to work with.

I don't expect to convince you, but I did want to clarify it a little (very little, I'm sure). Thanks for the exchange. I needed a break from work.

a reply to: NorEaster

Thoughts are generated by the brain. Thoughts are what the human brain does.

I am not a scientific person as such ... however this does not mean I do not understand certain things that science investigates ... In my own way of course ... In my own words

A non scientist may well understand in their own way what a scientist is seeking to understand
Example being ... some seemingly ordinary person in past times ... may through thought and contemplation understand that the Earth is not at the centre of the Universe ... in that persons time of being the scientific consensus may have been the Earth is indeed at the Centre of the Universe...

Does the Brain really create thought ... or are we merely witnessing the effect of thought being processed by the brain
Much like a radio which is a receiver of radio waves but is not the creator of those waves

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

My reaction? My reaction to what? No where have I said "give up, it's hopeless, there's no point, you are dust in the wind".

you will be there eventually if you continue down this gloomy road. unless it brings you a sense of fulfillment to believe in next to nothing as you lay on your deathbed. but thats your cross to bear. giggity.

This thread makes me think of spirits called devas. They inhabit many different things (plants,streams,mountains)etc. Plato stated "The MIND will find the ultimate truth after leaving the body". To be honest I believe that reincarnation is a conscious after life choice. It is your choise whether to return to Earth, or traverse the heavens ie. starwalking. The Egyptians were well aware of this fact. This is why they placed so much importance on the after life.
-*

a reply to: Oannes

I too think re incarnation is by choice
However for the soul to progress it needs to come to a point of understanding before it can go forward beyond the confines of the planets / transitory realms ... then it can be said to have evolved and enter the true / eternal realms of soul

The Egyptians understood that in order to enter the Eternal Realms of soul ... The soul must first "Run the race of Purity"

An evolved soul is not obliged to re incarnate upon an Earth but choose to do so in order to assist others

The unevolved soul in the transit realms eventually does choose to re incarnate ... at a time and place and parents of it's choosing ... In order to fulfil it's purpose for being on Earth ... it can also change it's mind and wait till another time more suited to it

I KNOW LES MIS WILL AGREE THIS IS CORRECT .....not lol ...

originally posted by: artistpoet

I KNOW LES MIS WILL AGREE THIS IS CORRECT .....not lol ...

LOL!

I was thinking while reading your post that LesMis is one of those evolved souls that returned to tell us that there is no such thing as reincarnation.

We have now "officially" crossed over to the contents of that other thread ("Reincarnation: A Blessing or a Curse?") that prompted LesMis to start this one in the first place!

What goes around comes around...

a reply to: bb23108

Yes ... Perhaps Les is sent to test us ...

a reply to: bb23108

What goes around comes around...

True ... in ever decreasing dizzying circles so it seems

Before it slips away I'd like to try to flesh out some thoughts that came to mind as I was trying to drift off to sleep. What knowledge I have regarding psychology and the schools of thought that relate to it are directly the result of a friend of mine who lobbied me heavily in the early '80s to get away from physical wear and tear of the types of employment I'd been doing and go back to school to start the process of becoming a therapist. (Different story for another time) Family and kids meant the bills had to be paid so it wasn't to be, but I've been exposed to a lot through his recommended reading list and I have continued to try to educate myself as something comes along that strikes me as worth reading and thinking about.

When I stopped by this thread a few nights ago some of the posts reminded me of a guy that I worked with for a while in his band. He had been born with sight but due to some kind of trauma or disease had lost his vision before his teens because of detached retinas.

As I was in that relaxed state at the edge of sleep but still aware, I remembered an article I'd read two or three years ago by someone who had been born blind. The article was called something like "No... I Don't see black!" The author very eloquently managed to frame his perceptions in the context of 'you don't miss something you've never had'. It made me realize that life was much more different for him than the guitarist/keyboard player that I had gigged with. One at least had the memory of what vision was like, the other had never had the actual, physical means to even compare his world to the world of sighted people who asked without meaning to be offensive. There was a perception gap that went both ways.

You might be wondering, how does this relate to the OP?

For me, personally, I was glad that my introduction to Carl Jung was by way of the book "Key to Yourself:Opening the Door to a Joyful Life from Within" by Venice Bloodworth. Her perspective made it possible for me to quickly get a layman's grasp of Jung's concepts without getting bogged down in high-minded rhetoric.

Just in case someone is unfamiliar with him and the terms he used, I'll give the quick example found in her book (paraphrasing of course...)

Organized religion isn't necessary to identify with these principles, but, by the same token, unless you are completely a fundamentalist they aren't incompatible with faith and spirituality.

Every achievement made by Man/Woman began, first, as a thought. Consciousness is the germ, the wellspring all Creation/creation. When that is understood and internalized, it puts a whole new meaning on "in His image".

The Jung school of thought includes the Collective Unconscious. Think in terms of the Atlantic Ocean. You can drive to the Eastern Seaboard and dip out a peanut butter jar of the Atlantic, screw on the lid and come back home (in my case, Indiana). Even though you may set that peanut butter jar on your mantle, it is still your bit of the Atlantic Ocean.

That is the simile Bloodworth uses to convey the difference between our Conscious and Unconscious. (The more popular phrase these days is Subconscious, but the meaning is the same.) As created, conscious beings we each also have our peanut butter jar of the subconscious. Part of cognitive therapy is based on getting the patient to understand the importance and power of the subconscious. The subconscious doesn't make value judgements, it takes what we accept consciously and sets about bringing it into reality. That's the reason that positive affirmations take on power with repetition and negative thoughts are self-fulfilling unless you learn to watch for them and nip them in the bud.

There's more I'd like to say, but I need to go shortly.

The link between the two blind guys I mentioned and the psychology stuff I just mentioned ties in to the OP (at least imo) because of a perception gap.

I'll paraphrase the indelicate phrase used earlier because it helps to make the point. When the "meat machine" ceases to be the vessel holding that jar of the Atlantic and it returns to blend in with its original source, the physical mechanisms that a scientist looks to for empirical evidence is headed for the maggot farm and the consciousness that had been is believed to add to the Collective Unconscious in ways like racial/ancestral memory.

I'll never forget the afternoon in 6th grade science class when the concept hit me for the first time and I blurted out, "I could have been born a BIRD!!!" Not only did our teacher not appreciate the interruption, but we had quite a few hard-core, church-raised kids in my class that were almost ready to riot over such a blasphemous statement...

a reply to: bb23108

Right, clearly that is the case now, but what if the experience overwhelmed you and it was as I described to you? That you could very vividly see in your unconscious that multiple lifetimes linked you to your current one. Would this change your rationalism?

The inquiry was based on you having this experience, not just categorically dismissing it.

It would be easily dismissed as the product of an imaginative mind, simply because the facts contradict it. Such an experience could have occurred for a variety of highly-possible reasons, and I would look to them before I pleaded to impossibilities.

My question to you is, why resort to reincarnation, while categorically dismissing the more probable explanations for your "memory"?

a reply to: NorEaster

Thanks to you, Noreaster. You're a breath of fresh air whenever you poke your head in spirituality and immaterialism forum. If more philosophy and metaphysics was practiced here, I probably wouldn't write these polemics.

With science debunking itself from decade to decade - generally as a result of new and/or improved observation technologies - I'd be uncomfortable with relying on empiricism when declaring the nature of reality to be anything other than an evolving revelation.

That's why I don't limit my examination to what I can see, touch, taste, smell, or reproduce in simulation. The nature of information (not recorded data, but I'm assuming that you agree that there's a difference) is not perceptible by human beings or their technologies - at the moment. That doesn't mean that information doesn't exist as an environmental presence. Precedent does affect the "mechanics" of material reality, otherwise we have to look for gods to explain why electrons look and act like electrons and an atom can be counted on to remain what kind of atom it is. Also, what do you think it is that allows you to remember anything? And if you think it's "memory cells" then where is the "ghost" in each memory cell that teams up with all the other little ghosts in all your other memory cells to make it possible for you to tie your shoes in the morning?

Like I mentioned in my last reply, the simulation theory of memory is my current understanding on the subject of remembering. I do not hold any sort of conviction in it (as, like you said, such a theory is likely to change, and it is still in its infancy), but it definitely has empirical and intuitive merit. The theory stipulates we activate the very same parts of the brain as we did when we first experienced the event. So we are not refering to anything called a memory as such, but we are simulating the event we are remembering by activating the same parts of the brain we did when it occured. Seems simple enough. As they are saying now, we do not remember an event in the past as such, but are really remembering the last time we remembered it, given that new neural connections are formed during this process. This seems intuitive, without having to resort to ghosts, mystical substances, or little things called "memories".

As for empiricism, I agree with your assesment. But it seems to me self-defeating to on one hand dismiss empiricism, yet to utilize empiricism in order to do so. I can understand that a pure empiricism may be problematic, but then again I don't think anyone actually adheres to such a doctrine, doesn't actually limit himself to the senses, and instead uses all the tools available to him. But this is an ancient dichotomy we're discussing here, and in my eyes is a false dilema not worth considering for too long a time.

I know the latest and greatest theories concerning a competitive scramble for cognitive dominance (Professor Susan Greenfield seems to be the thought leader along these lines) but no one's been able to even suggest how all of these protein clusters can possess the sapience necessary to configure and reconfigure in real time to adequately respond to a nuanced and sophisticated conversation when the most advanced IA programs fail miserably at managing the art of riding in a subway during rush hour. Unless you're suggesting that proteins are conscious and that they hold really quick staff meetings from instant to instant to decide as a collective which synaptic sub-assembly will take the helm and be the person for whatever instant it is that is being addressed, then you haven't got a clue concerning why you're not a complete hulk of disjointed twitches and spasms right now

It's easy to just deny everything (calling it ignorance) but there's a ramification structure that persists without acknowledgment if that's what you do. Theoretical science isn't applied science. Applied science is janitorial in nature. It doesn't and it cannot lead. Hitting a cell assembly with a probe is like cutting apart a brain to find thought tucked inside somewhere. It's just an extension of Victorian era scientism.

The applied sciences can lead. Without the technology to perform the experimental work, theoretical science is mere philosophy. What would Galileo's ideas be without the technology of the telescope, mathematics, and the scientific method? We'd still be be adhereing to Aristotlean physics if something like the applied sciences (which in those days might be called applied philosophy) did not furnish the technology and empirical groundwork to move our ideas beyond it. The experimental and theoretical sciences are in no way opposed, and I would argue that the work of the applied sciences is where new sciences arise, for instance microbiology, computer science, etc.

On the subject of AI and sensorimotor skills unable to complete simple tasks, check out the Moravec's paradox on why this is so.

Actually, you should read that book I link for you. Neuroscientists research what the brain does. Thoughts are generated by the brain. Thoughts are what the human brain does. I don't see the disconnect. I'm not doing philosophy here.

I will check out the book, thanks for the suggestion. But no, I disagree, thoughts are not generated by the brain, speaking of reductionism. Maybe we should do a little philosophy here. Put any brain in a psychologists chair and tell me it thinks.

The emergent system isn't a noumenal abstract. A tornado is an emergent system. So is biological life. Look up Emergence. It's not an exotic notion by any means.

Emergence itself isn't an exotic notion, but what I stated was that when it is applied to mind, it fails. Nothing of a mind or system emerges, is my contention.

I didn't say that the human mind is like residual data sets. It's not. That said, it is still an information collective in its physical structure. Since it is brain authored, the data sets that comprise the mind are not open to entanglement with environmentally emergent data sets (residual data sets) or those data sets authored by a different brain (someone else's mind). This has to do with the mechanics of physical existence (Identity) and the combination of historical and relative context that establishes Identity, but that's a very different discussion. One brain creates one mind, and when that brain dies, that's it for any further development for that mind. It persists, but it has only the data set collective that its authoring brain created over the course of its own existence to work with.

I don't expect to convince you, but I did want to clarify it a little (very little, I'm sure). Thanks for the exchange. I needed a break from work.

Thank you. My obvious problem is with the concept of information itself. Any "information" on information you could refer me to would be very helpful.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

WOW! For someone who sounds intelligent you are shorting yourself the chance to receive wisdom by closing off your mind. NO!! I did not read the entire thread nor do I want to. I just recently had my second NDE. Religion had nothing to do with my experiences. In fact, it totally changed my view on religion. I grew up Christian. Angels and Demons, Jesus and God. There is A Creator and in time you shall know the answers that you seek. If you would open your mind up a little bit, you might be surprised and actually find answers now rather than the latter. Do I know there is an afterlife? Absolutely. Do I know our energy/soul moves on to a different place/changes form...YES!

I cannot prove this to you scientifically, nor would I try. But I know what happened to me. I know what I experienced. And yes, dead...as in no heartbeat, no brainwaves dead! Twice is no coincidence. I don't believe in that anyway.

It is good though to get a good debate going though. It brings out things in people that they don't realize about themselves. Two years from now reread this thread.

a reply to: cloudwatcher

I know what I experienced. And yes, dead...as in no heartbeat, no brainwaves dead! Twice is no coincidence. I don't believe in that anyway.

Death is permanent. You seem fairly alive to me, but you should probably be more careful.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
It would be easily dismissed as the product of an imaginative mind, simply because the facts contradict it. Such an experience could have occurred for a variety of highly-possible reasons, and I would look to them before I pleaded to impossibilities.

Your physically-based "facts" would not be present and available to you in these moments of experiencing your other lifetimes - you would simply be perceiving the prior events as you did when you actually lived them, as being aware of the physical form and its environment at that time.

So are you saying that regardless of your experience, your current physically-based "facts" reign supreme?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
My question to you is, why resort to reincarnation, while categorically dismissing the more probable explanations for your "memory"?

Because as I sit here and type this, it is completely obvious that I am not just a physical body typing away.

In conjunction with, and senior to, the physical body-mind, is the subtle body-mind that transcends the limitations of this mortal physicality. This subtle body is therefore as self-evident as is the physical body-mind, and it does not die when the physical body passes. It moves on as I already have written about.

Here's a thought experiment:

These words I am typing are a part of me that I am transferring over an invisible connection to your computer. If we are only a body then how am I transmitting my thoughts through the internet? Are these words my body? If not, then what are they? Are they not an invisible, non-physical part of my being that I am projecting through my keyboard and onto your computer screen?

These invisible parts of my being (thoughts being transformed into words over the internet and onto a computer screen) are a part of existence that the OP denies exists. The fact that you have invisible thoughts and memories is proof that you are more than just a body. Those things cannot be seen by the eye, yet they are there and easily accessible at any moment. Where are they coming from and where do they go once they are thought of? They are part of a higher dimension that your lower dimensional body taps into, they are part of the spiritual world that you deny exists.

The OP is the product of a carnal mind that does not grasp what it truly is. This is a symptom of indoctrination and spiritual blindness in my opinion. The evidence is there, the carnal mind just refuses to see it.

Life after death is one of those questions that will Never go away until conclusively proven. The idea of life after death will never be disproven

The fact the body dies and goes through a transformation back into the way of the soil is obviously true and I doubt any intelligent person would ever deny that

Like the question of intelligent life in other parts of the Universe ... It also will never go away until proven

How can one prove life after death does not exist when the question of soul will never go away ...

Firstly Thought itself is not fully understood nor is the true source of life itself ... The cause of the prime movement

Hence any honest and open minded debate on this question would not begin with a pre set dismissal of the question itself
The OP starts on the premise of a close minded conclusion that leaves no room for other views

originally posted by: artistpoet
Life after death is one of those questions that will Never go away until conclusively proven. The idea of life after death will never be disproven

Using the same logic, question of unicorns will never go away until conclusively proven. The idea of unicorns will never be disprove. (if this is what you mean )

Apart of religious dogma and ownership over 'afterlife', there is no single shred of evidence for afterlife, even many religious nuts tried to prove afterlife exist.

originally posted by: artistpoet
The fact the body dies and goes through a transformation back into the way of the soil is obviously true and I doubt any intelligent person would ever deny that

Same happens to all other living and even non living world... Even planets die...

originally posted by: artistpoet
Like the question of intelligent life in other parts of the Universe ... It also will never go away until proven

Neither will vampires, unicorns, dragons, Thor, Zeus...

originally posted by: artistpoet
How can one prove life after death does not exist when the question of soul will never go away ...

Now you are mixing apples and oranges.

originally posted by: artistpoet
Firstly Thought itself is not fully understood nor is the true source of life itself ... The cause of the prime movement

Not following, what do you mean? Gravity was not completly understood, but we developed experiments, laws and later were able to defy it and send people to space... Modern science is only couple hundreds of years old, give it some time, please....

originally posted by: artistpoet
Hence any honest and open minded debate on this question would not begin with a pre set dismissal of the question itself

Open you mind too much and your brain will fall out... ask Tim Minchin.

originally posted by: artistpoet
The OP starts on the premise of a close minded conclusion that leaves no room for other views

Other views? Could you call a view someone believe we all go to mount Olympus when we die? Why call stuff that does not make much sense, it's based purely on wishful thinking and folklore tales a view... You are free to believe all you want, but that is not a 'view' but your personal imagination...