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

a reply to: Visitor2012

If a person doesn't know 'what' they are, by that I mean if they do not understand their position in the scheme of the phenomenal World, then there is NO possible way for them understand ANYTHING at all, no matter how smart or learned they become . EVERYONE intuitively knows the position I speak of, and if they are aware of anything at all, they can perceive that awareness from none other than this position.

If there is no possible way to understand anything at all, we can rightfully assume this about your argument. It's self defeating and contradictory, and wrong the moment it is spoken. But as I already stated, this attitude is simply a reaction to the facts, not any argument composed of any fact.

There is absolutely NO proof or evidence which substantiates ANYBODY's version of phenomenal 'reality'. My dear LesMisanthrope, science has gone far beyond the physical 'reality' you treat as solid ground.

Then we can disregard your assertion as being founded on nothing.

There are plenty of sciences. Which science has gone beyond physical reality? and if it isn't speaking about physical reality, what are they speaking about?

Everything you know about your existence, comes from the the input of your sensory perceptions. And ONLY after the brain has recreated its interpretation of what's being percieved, do YOU see it. If you know anything about scientific discovery, you would know that what you perceive of the universe around you is but a finite slice of an infinite spectrum of perception. In addition, ALL of your true knowledge (experiential knowledge..not knowledge from a book) is based SOLEY on this information. So technically speaking, you have absolutely NO idea about what's really outside of the extremely limited and finite information being fed to you from your mind/body instrument. You have NO idea what's happening outside of your skull. Socrates was a wise man because he saw through the illusion of phenomonality and the sense of reality we give to it.

That isn't the case. Your idea is invalid, based on your begging the question that there is a little being in the head being fed inputs from outside. You seem to think we are not our senses nor the rest of the body but a little being who watches what the senses shows him, perhaps like you're in a theatre. That is not the case. This solipsism here is infinitely regressive, unsubstantiated, and based on the homunculus argument. How does this little you view inputs? Is there another little you in its head? The idea that I do not know anything outside my skull is unequivocally false, as is this sort of solipsism. If you don't know anything outside of your skull, then please Visitor, can you describe to me the inside of your skull? Or take a picture of yourself; if that picture of you shows the inside of your skull, and not the outside, you may then say the camera was inside your skull.

a reply to: elysiumfire

The main problem to post-mortem consciousness is the 'power supply' problem. If, we are that which we call consciousness, then our attempt to 'know' what happens after biological death, requires that our consciousness retains energy and is supplied by some power source to keep it and memory cohesive. During biological life, the physical body is what supplies and organises the power supply, so what can supply the 'energy' after the biological body can no longer do this?

Not only that, but the equivalency of energy to mass is all but forgotten on those who throw the term around.

a reply to: Plotus

I believe it's moot to speculate. We as a scientific/medically equipped society really don't have the means or apparatus needed to search for that which could prove either way the existence of a Soul.

We have Faith or denial to choose from in this regard. What we do have however, is the option to gamble which is true, soul or no soul. This is a hot topic as the consequences for a wrong absolute belief could be Eternal Bliss, or an Eternity in Torment and separation as described in most religious theology, or that is to say, Occidental man. Western Religions nearly all insist on a Soul as part of their belief system. Even some Eastern religions insist as well.

We have been looking in the body for millennia. It isn't a gamble given the mountains of proof. It is no longer a question of speculating; it is a question of how much one is willing to deny base facts. Even if we did have the most sophisticated detection imaginable, and have looked behind and within every single atom, what proof for or against do you expect to find? Unfortunately you are guilty of begging the question, that there is proof for or against the soul, and we need to find it. It sounds like you might be considering the folk-psychology of primitive tribes and priests, men who knew nothing about the body, nor the environment in which they live in, the same men who thought illness was possession of demons, and the dead lived in the clouds, over the irrefutable empirical evidence that says otherwise. On what grounds, may I ask?

a reply to: ForteanOrg

But wait - how can I know for sure? I never actually SAW a human body decay. Potatoes, vegetables, flowers - yes. And sure enough some animals too - we live in a rural area. But DO humans decay? If I'd base my opinions on personal observation I could not be sure: I never had to witness it. In Europe, humans mostly die in their beds and we bury them just in time not to have to see them decay. Good.

Cadaver farms. You can witness this process, which has been studied in great detail, if you wish, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Or you may be right. Neither of us can proof a negative.

We can prove negatives. The irony is "neither of us can prove a negative", is a negative. Imagine that.

Let me ask you a very simple question. Where is the end of the universe?
Man tries to explain it by saying infinity. But just try to explain and give evidence for a truely neverending universe. How can there be a space with no boundary? No end. No edge. It just boggles the mind to think about a space that goes on and on and on with out no end.
That is your answer. You cannot explain it. It just is. There may be an edge but you can't prove it and by the same token just that you can't or can prove an aferlife is not definative evidence that non exists.

So what is this Love

Love never dies only hate and illusion falls away when we go home

Or this love

.

Hey at it again ...

Are You Conscious ?

If so please describe how your consciousness is Not Part of All that is .

If consciousness is part of All that is .. Then it is energy as All else is .

So is this some kind of new opt in consciousness ?

What makes you so special ?

.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Go to a place where they have stacks of human bodies that decay? Er.. no, thanks. But yes, that would convince me that human bodies do decay, might I have any doubt. At least at that moment and in that place, all the rest is just assumption again, of course. Maybe they have never done that before. Maybe they will never again. I may have been in the right place and at the right time to witness that peculiar event - the decay of human flesh - like others were in the right place at the right time to see a ghost, UFO, or converse with the dead,

Anyway, I digress. I often do.

Let me ask you a question, just to ensure we do not end up entangled in discussions about negated negatives: which of the two following statement is true in your opinion:

[A] There is no continuation of life of an entity after its physical body died
[B] There is continuation of life of an entity after its physical body died

.. or, if you don't know, just say so ..

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: humanityrising
The only thing we know is that we don't know; in essence that means neither side of this debate is incontrovertible and %100 airtight. One could argue till the cows came home in one way or another but there is really no point in it. A claim to know for sure the answer to this question might and should be construed as arrogance.

I know for a fact that there is life after death and it isn't arrogance for me to say this.

My own Mom died from cancer unexpectedly when it was said she had at least 6 months to live. I wasn't there when she died, but I knew the exact moment that she did die, because she came to my apartment and I smelled her favorite perfume very strong suddenly, plus I could feel her presence there for a moment. I ran out to the other room and told my wife that Mom just died and so we called home and I told my sister and she was astounded because she had just watched her pass on for herself since she was there with her, and she was about to call me and tell me to get over there quick.

I already knew without any doubt there is life after death, but if I was ever looking for proof of it, then that which had just happened would have done the trick.

Even so, the expectation of getting someone to believe what you believe after having that very personal experience is unrealistic. You may very well have had that experience, but for someone else to take it as truth would be taking your word for it, which, to anyone other than you, does not equate to incontrovertible evidence. I have hopes of my own, and have also had peculiar occurrences in my life, but in the end I'm left with "I don't know".

The mind and the heart are such different creatures that to get by one ends up lying to the other in some capacity. Whether or not there is life after death should make no difference. We are lucky to be a part of this anyway.

The Buddhist in me makes me realize that the real truth lies somewhere in between most warring factions/theories. Though for whatever reason it is human nature to know that it is one way or the other in order to sleep at night.

Try and wrap your mind around this; what if everything everyone ever believed is true in some capacity?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If there is no possible way to understand anything at all, we can rightfully assume this about your argument.

My dear LesMisanthrope, I do love stimulating conversation and it's a pleasure talking with you. However, what argument do you claim I'm making? The argument that it is impossible to know the external world if you don't know what's looking at it? I maintain my assertion. If you don't know the fundamental basics of your existence, then what can you know about anything else in existence?

There are plenty of sciences. Which science has gone beyond physical reality? and if it isn't speaking about physical reality, what are they speaking about?

Surely you jest. All areas of Quantum science, if I can refer to it as such, investigate areas and concepts beyond the reach of physics based sciences. For scientists to explain quantum science, it has to be stripped down and converted into space/time concepts for the general public to understand. The quest for the Higgs boson, is another scientific endeavor that comes to mind, which continues to discover new areas of understanding beyond the reach of physics based sciences. Metaphysics is another area of scientific study. Where have you been? High school physics isn't the final frontier of human understanding.

That isn't the case. Your idea is invalid, based on your begging the question that there is a little being in the head being fed inputs from outside.

Rubbish. Quote me where I said "there's a little being in your head" and I'll hop around the block wearing nothing but rabbit ears and a diaper. Lest I digress, let me ask you one thing for clarity purposes. Who is receiving the final result coming from your brain, of your body's sensory perceptions? Isn't it you? Who else is perceiving it? Certainly that's not a little being in your head. You don't receive inputs from the outside, you receive the experience generated by your own brain's interpretation of the data coming from your sensory perceptions. THAT is the extent of your awareness of you're body and the so-called 'outside world'.

You seem to think we are not our senses nor the rest of the body but a little being who watches what the senses shows him, perhaps like you're in a theatre. That is not the case.

Who are you other than the perceiver of your very own senses? The senses are isolated, independent systems in the body, the brain handles the signals from each one differently and in different areas of the brain, what is aware of all of them simultaneously? What is that which receives the totality of the brains output? And is this one separate from your very own self? Isn't it you?

I never spoke of any little being inside someone's head. Your senses belong to your body, they're outward bound. The body mechanism senses, the brain receives the signals, filters it, interprets it, THEN you experience. If your body doesn't transmit the data, YOU don't experience or perceive anything.

Let me break my argument down to something you may understand. If a doctor gave you a shot that numbed the sensations coming from your spinal cord, and put a blindfold on you, would you be aware of anyone touching your foot? The answer is a resounding NO. So I'm afraid to bring the bad news to you, but you're experience of life is subject to and LIMITED BY your Body's ability to deliver and transmit the experience to you, the sentient, conscious observer. If you think there is someone OTHER than you who receives and perceives these experiences and sensations, then perhaps indeed, you might have a little being inside your head.

How does this little you view inputs?

You're capable of answering this. For instance, WHO, other than you, is experiencing the vision coming from your eyes or any other senses? Isn't it you viewing the output of your visual senses? How do you go from that, to a little man in the head? Wait, don't answer that.

Is there another little you in its head?

Oh boy...

The idea that I do not know anything outside my skull is unequivocally false,

Aah, and thanks to your body's ability to transmit the finite data coming from your outward bound senses, interpret the information and present it as a living experience. Without functioning sensory equipment, and functioning data delivery systems and mechanisms, you're as blind as a mute bat.

as is this sort of solipsism. If you don't know anything outside of your skull, then please Visitor, can you describe to me the inside of your skull?

Well that's just it, you HAVE no idea what's going on INSIDE or OUTSIDE of your skull outside the parameters of your sensory perceptions. The physical world you experience is at the mercy AND within the limits of the body instrument's ability to sense and transmit it to you as an experience.

Or take a picture of yourself; if that picture of you shows the inside of your skull, and not the outside, you may then say the camera was inside your skull

Ok. If you want to use an example, use it right. Take a digital camera for example. There's a microchip inside the camera which receives and interprets the electrical signals coming from the image sensor and through the analog/digital converters. Anything outside the microchip's ability to receive and translate is NOT recorded in the final image.

The life you're experiencing this moment is due to your body's ability to receive and transmit the sensory signals. There is no experience of physical life outside of this. Unless you know how to perceive the physical world without these senses.

I have had a near death experience that I dont talk about, mainly because I dont think its for anyone to know what I experienced, but lets just say the beings that were there--well they didnt come from my own spiritual confirmation bias.

I'm not here to try and convince you of an afterlife, because maybe what I experienced is something different, or something individual; maybe even a hallucination?. What I want to convey to you is that you dont know where your journey will take you once you die, and you have to prepare to be wrong. I dont mean by finding a deity and start praying, I mean a bit of introspectiveness--where has your soul journeyed so far? how much further can you take it? how much further will it take you?.

But maybe my words have no meaning here.

I know my soul existed before this life and therefore I believe it will do so again. I don't need to ask any questions of this, I only need faith.

a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

I know my soul existed before this life and therefore I believe it will do so again. I don't need to ask any questions of this, I only need faith.

Yes trust your own soul ... though obstacles and doubts are placed in your path ... in overcoming them your faith/belief will only strengthen ...

Visitor2012:

In that context, the consciousness itself IS the source of the energy you speak of, it is THAT from which all perceivable energy is manifested, including the forms that appear within it. The body is the result of the energy, as opposed to being the source of it.

Consciousness is not a 'source' of energy, it is simply an emergent conditioned state, organised and mediated by the biological and electro-chemical functioning of the human body and brain. Your view on consciousness is the most ubiquitous error-filled perception of it. Let me ask you...and I throw this question out into the thread for anyone to answer...what sort of energy is consciousness, and when biological death completes, how is consciousness able to supply its own energy needs? How (for want of a better term) is the so-called spirit able to manifest both consciousness and sentient intelligence after death, and how does it circumnavigate entropy?

Visitor2012:

All areas of Quantum science, if I can refer to it as such, investigate areas and concepts beyond the reach of physics based sciences...

I believe you are confused. All energetic interactions have a physical effect. Are you aware and do you understand the difference between say 'solidity', 'substance', 'mass', and 'physicality'? Physicality is neither solidity or substance, neither is mass. Physicality and mass are two effects, whereas solidity and substance are qualitative aspects of matter. We derive physicality from Newton's third law, where for every action there is an instantaneous and equal opposing reaction. It is this that stops you from falling through the ground towards the earth's core, it has nothing to do with contact with solidity or matter, because there is no contact, only opposing forces denying such contact.

Concepts are abstractions in the mind. Consciousness has no effect upon anything, because it is a passive state of condition. The thought experiment of 'Schrödinger's Cat' eloquently proves this. Our gaze which is a directed focus of consciousness affects nothing, to make an effect, we have to do physical work. Don't attribute aspects on consciousness that it cannot have.

Interesting thread, the ironic resemblance of your avatar to the late Beatle, George Harrison, is never lost on me. On this particular topic it's exquisitely apropos. Some of my old bandmates and I got together for drinks when he passed away. I was the only one that seemed to understand that the evening need not be so morose. George had devoted the majority of his adult life trying to come to terms with what life was all about. As we were lifting beers in his honor, either he finally understood or it didn't make any difference.

My lack of an opportunity to go on to higher education has never stopped me from learning when I can, as I go. I'm curious...

Are you trying to Convince or Be convinced?

I usually like to credit any quotes I use, but I'm afraid I am at a loss on this one. "The only thing more unlikely than being born twice is being born once."

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

YOU GOT THAT RIGHT.

a reply to: elysiumfire

Consciousness is not a 'source' of energy, it is simply an emergent conditioned state, organised and mediated by the biological and electro-chemical functioning of the human body and brain.

A clarification of my use of the terminology is all that is needed. When I refer to consciousness, I'm talking about EVERYTHING which includes the absolute presence and absolute sentience behind the fabric and perception of space/time itself. It is the source of everything in the manifested existence and that which manifests from it is also consciousness and none other than it. Everything is consciousness in my 'view' and including my sense of self in the phenomenal world, and the essence of my own presence. The physical expressions even the phenomenal nature of the body and mind and the awareness which flows through it. Even the emptiness between stars is 'contained' within it. It is the source of the existence, and it is the fundamental substrate Of the manifested universe.

This "simple", as you refer to it, 'emergent state, organized and mediated by the biological and electro-chemical functioning ' is what I identify as the mechanism of conscious awareness. Whereby the body instrument comes into vital play and the sentience is able to perceive and experience. Regardless, In light of continued scientific research in the subjects of consciousness, one thing is certain. There is no SIMPLE or rigid explanation about it. And outside of the bio, electro-chemical mechanism whereby conscious awareness is made possible, you know absolutely nothing else about it.

...what sort of energy is consciousness,

Again, in my use of the word, consciousness isn't a 'sort' of energy, it is the underlying source of it.

and when biological death completes, how is consciousness able to supply its own energy needs?

Again, I say that the body mechanism is not source of so-called energy or consciousness. An instrument through which conscious awareness operates , not the source. As such, consciousness is there regardless of the presence of the physical body even if Conscious awareness is not. Again, in my use of the words.

How (for want of a better term) is the so-called spirit able to manifest both consciousness and sentient intelligence after death, and how does it circumnavigate entropy?

Well, how does Santa's reindeer fly without wings? The problem I see here, is you're trying to resolve the 'how' of an assumption. What a mess that statement is.

No sane human being would ever claim what you wrote. Do you even know what you're saying? I mean, forget death for a moment and talk about something that's within everyone's experience, mainly Life! If you know the answer to that question you would also have to believe that the spirit can manifests consciousness and sentient intelligence in LIFE. Neither belief you can substantiate to yourself.

I'd prefer you speak from your own understanding, if I want to argue the contents of a book you've read, I'd just talk to the author instead. I speak for myself, and I admit, I'm not the most affective communicator, thus why I wanted to clarify my position. I thoroughly enjoy this so no offense will be taken.

a reply to: elysiumfire

I believe you are confused. All energetic interactions have a physical effect. Are you aware and do you understand the difference between say 'solidity', 'substance', 'mass', and 'physicality'?

I'm not talking about the physical effect. The question I was asked was "what science goes beyond physical reality?". Physical reality is a perception and spoken in terms of conceptual understanding, in that respect, quantum science does go beyond the concept called physical reality. The premise was to establish the fact that there are areas of science which are focused on that which is beyond physics based sciences, it is a science which investigates the underlying source of physicality itself, as opposed to focusing on the so called physical after effects.

Physicality is neither solidity or substance, neither is mass. Physicality and mass are two effects, whereas solidity and substance are qualitative aspects of matter.
We derive physicality from Newton's third law, where for every action there is an instantaneous and equal opposing reaction. It is this that stops you from falling through the ground towards the earth's core, it has nothing to do with contact with solidity or matter, because there is no contact, only opposing forces denying such contact.

I don't believe I have ever equated physicality with solidity or substance for that matter. No pun intended. I don't disagree with you here. Although my writing fatigue may be getting the best of me.

Concepts are abstractions in the mind.

But of course.

Consciousness has no effect upon anything, because it is a passive state of condition.

In my view, the phenomenal universe, including the experience of life itself, is an expression of consciousness. Consciousness being the very basis of existence itself. As such everything is affected by it, and it is everything being affected.

Our gaze which is a directed focus of consciousness affects nothing, to make an effect, we have to do physical work. Don't attribute aspects on consciousness that it cannot have.

See that doesn't compute where I'm coming from. Because ALL the aspects you can perceive is an aspect of consciousness. I don't know about this silly jedi-force nonsense you're talking about or even why you thought it had relevance to the discussion, but to me Everything is an aspect or expression of consciousness. In that respect, there is no aspect it DOESNT contain. I think we're speaking from two different positions here.

I enjoyed our conversation.