It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I Don't Understand Death, Nobody Does!

page: 11
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 03:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: spygeek
Objectively speaking, death is the cessation of all biological function. It is the end of biological life.

The claim that there is life beyond death requires that life be redefined as something non-biological, non-chemical, and non-physical.

This redefinition is not logically possible.


And what of the start of all biological life? If only the biological/chemical/physical can exist, then how do you explain the origin of the first piece of matter?




posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 03:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: spygeek
Objectively speaking, death is the cessation of all biological function. It is the end of biological life.

The claim that there is life beyond death requires that life be redefined as something non-biological, non-chemical, and non-physical.

This redefinition is not logically possible.


And what of the start of all biological life? If only the biological/chemical/physical can exist, then how do you explain the origin of the first piece of matter?


I love this question.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 04:09 AM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001

exactly, you got it!

To know is to (non)experience not to read or think, in my opinion. In deep meditation where there is no place for separations, thoughts, etc.. one can "reconnect" with the truth.

Meditation was around for a thousands of years for a reason, in my opinion. All the old pure buddhist (and many others too) teachings are the extension of pure meditation and pure heart and what they teach is in my humble opinion wisdom of the true mind.

We have put our effort in science and thinking, while Tibetans or other people in Asia or India have put an effort into the knowledge and wisdom of the mind with meditation. They have the most extensive practices, techniques and methods to get behind the veil of egoistic mind and see the truth for yourself. They have been doing this for a thousands of years. And are most pure and honest monks even till today...in my opinion.

also, what this rinpoche is teaching in the video is the honey and milk of meditation. And it is a must watch for anyone interested in true non-meditation or non-attainment. To know what that even means and to realize this, one must practice a lot...

For more information and what it means...I recommend to watch the video, but it is long, so it will take some time. And they are more parts of it...but it is not religious and not even spiritual. It is pure Buddhism! very profound philosophy of the mind...for me!



spygeek (nice nick, btw : ) ), if you find the time, please watch it and learn. If you are serious about meditation and are doing it for a lot of years with no wired experiences, there is maybe something or some thought or only BLIND beliefs (science does that!) "blocking" your mind...maybe this will help. But I don't want to push anything on anyone. Only do it if you so desire and wish, I don't particularly care what are your beliefs.

I have shared mine and that is enough for me, take from it what you will : )
edit on 1458724494314March143143116 by UniFinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 04:17 AM
link   
originally posted by: angryhulk
originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: angryhulk

vhb: What is death; as you understand it "in the classical sense" (physical, rhetorical, dramatized/sensational)?


angryhulk: Nothingness. Buried. You know, that sort of thing.

You cease to exist. I understand; you equate existence with a material form. What animates angryhulk and why would the animator (of an eternal nature/value) have to die along with that form. That form is not permanent its physical/temporary and has a time period in which to decay/fester turn back to dust.
edit on 23-3-2016 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 04:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: angryhulk
What is death; as you understand it "in the classical sense" (physical, rhetorical, dramatized/sensational)?


Nothingness. Buried. You know, that sort of thing.

You cease to exist. I understand; you equate existence with a material form.

No mate, I'm saying I don't understand it like that. I don't understand it in the classical sense. I guess I believe we continue in some form or another.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: angryhulk
Your being/soul is eternal and you have eternity to figure this out (that is a LONG TIME potentially to be spent in contemplation). I could think of more fun things; like exploring.
edit on 23-3-2016 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 05:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: angryhulk
Your being/soul is eternal and you have eternity to figure this out (that is a LONG TIME potentially to be spent in contemplation). I could think of more fun things; like exploring.


But it's such an interesting topic that I want to spend an ultra small portion of my life exploring the idea.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
Where and how was it that this supposed "consciousness" we supposedly possess was deemed to be so supposedly important?.

Should I venture to guess that it may be in religion and religious beliefs, where we are conditioned to be so narcissistic in assuming we are so important and entitled to eternal life after death?.

I'm not religious at all mate. I arrive at my own conclusions based on my own teachings. Thinking there is a life (or form of continuation) after death is not narcissistic. You can't even prove there isn't. Nobody can. That's the point in this thread.


While we cannot absolutely prove there is not a continuation of consciousness after death

I got spygeek to say this, yay!


A failure to disprove something does not make that something more likely or more reasonable =P

We can't disprove it because it is unfalsifiable.




The notion contradicts everything we know about consciousness. It is incompatible with the very definition of consciousness. An alternative definition is required to explain it, but no such alternative definition exists that can account for what we already know about consciousness.

I was under the impression that scientists were working with a number of theories surrounding consciousness. Can you provide a conclusion?


All of these theories state that consciousness is a physical, biological process.

The hypothesis that consciousness is separate from physiology has no supporting scientific theory.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv

originally posted by: spygeek
Objectively speaking, death is the cessation of all biological function. It is the end of biological life.

The claim that there is life beyond death requires that life be redefined as something non-biological, non-chemical, and non-physical.

This redefinition is not logically possible.




Ah, but you cannot bring logic into a spirit fight. Nor can you do the reverse.

It is a personal thing.


Exactly. Personal faith in the existence of spirits or the soul is logically indefensible.

This is why "nobody understands" it.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: spygeek
This redefinition is not logically possible.


You can't prove that.


I can.

P1) For anything to be logically definable, it must be physically perceivable.
P2) Something that is non-biological, non-chemical, and non-physical is not perceivable.
P3) Life is physically perceivable.
C1) Anything non-physical cannot be logically defined.
C2) Life is logically definable because it is physically perceivable.
C3) Life is not non-biological, non-chemical, or non-physical.

or,

P1) The logical definition of anything is necessarily limited to what is perceivable.
P2) Life is physically perceivable.
C1) The logical definition of life is necessarily limited to what is physically perceivable.

or

P1) For anything to exist, it must have physical characteristics.
P2) The non-physical has no physical characteristics.
C1) The non-physical can not exist.
edit on 23-3-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: spygeek
Objectively speaking, death is the cessation of all biological function. It is the end of biological life.

The claim that there is life beyond death requires that life be redefined as something non-biological, non-chemical, and non-physical.

This redefinition is not logically possible.


And what of the start of all biological life? If only the biological/chemical/physical can exist, then how do you explain the origin of the first piece of matter?


Physicists are still investigating this, but since the discovery of the Higgs boson, which was predicted half a century ago by modern physical theory, much headway has been made:


In the “primordial soup" that existed after the Big Bang, there were almost equal amounts of particles of antiparticles, except for a tiny asymmetry: one particle per 10 billion.

Specifically, the asymmetry may have been produced as a result of the motion of the Higgs field, which is associated with the Higgs boson, and which could have made the masses of particles and antiparticles in the universe temporarily unequal, allowing for a small excess of matter particles over antiparticles.


UCLA physicists offer a solution to the puzzle of the origin of matter in the universe


Postinflationary Higgs Relaxation and the Origin of Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry


How do you explain the origin of matter?



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: spygeek
Objectively speaking, death is the cessation of all biological function. It is the end of biological life.

The claim that there is life beyond death requires that life be redefined as something non-biological, non-chemical, and non-physical.

This redefinition is not logically possible.


And what of the start of all biological life? If only the biological/chemical/physical can exist, then how do you explain the origin of the first piece of matter?


I love this question.


What you think about the answer?

Do you have answer yourself?
edit on 23-3-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   
I think we all go round and round until we get it right. Fear death as much as the last time you died.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: spygeek

So in other words, science — and by extension yourself — do not know definitively the answer to that question.

Which is fine, just thought I would demonstrate that to you that science might not have all the answers you think it does.

I personally do not know the answer to the question I asked, but was interested in your response.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: spygeek

I think now I can see more clearly from where you are arguing.

Allow me to make a factual statement and then ask you a question.

Phenomena that cannot that be seen by the naked eye (oxygen, microbes, sound waves etc.) were once thought not to exist (at least not observably) until the relevant instrument was invented that could measure them. At the time, your current argument ("there is no measurable physical/chemical basis for their existence, therefore it cannot be determined that they do indeed exist") would have been logically sound and dismissive of their existence. Did this mean at the time that they did not exist, and would you have been classified as superstitious for believing in them? Why or why not?



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: spygeek

So in other words, science — and by extension yourself — do not know definitively the answer to that question.


We have an answer that is very well informed by observation and objective evidence. This is more than can be said of any metaphysical non-explanations.

Science is not about "definitively answering" anything. It is about finding the most likely, best informed, most logically consistent, and most reliable explanations of how reality works.

Metaphysical, spiritual, and faith-based explanations are about finding the most personally comforting explanations, and almost always the most emotionally provocative explanations. They often impose "mystery" where there is in fact none, and usually rely on peoples existential need to justify their own lives with a "higher power" or some other unknowable quality outside of our ability to perceive.

In short: science is about objectively understanding reality, and metaphysics is about subjectively and philosophically understanding ourselves. There is very little common ground between them, and they can't be used interchangeably.


Which is fine, just thought I would demonstrate that to you that science might not have all the answers you think it does.


What gave you the idea that I thought science has answers for things it doesn't?

Science is able to provide well substantiated explanations to many things, the fact that there are still questions not yet answered does not have any effect on this or take anything away from this at all.


I personally do not know the answer to the question I asked, but was interested in your response.


Well now at least you have answer that is based in objective observations of reality that you can accept with confidence, even if a little study of physics is required to understand it.
edit on 23-3-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: spygeek

I think now I can see more clearly from where you are arguing.

Allow me to make a factual statement and then ask you a question.

Phenomena that cannot that be seen by the naked eye (oxygen, microbes, sound waves etc.) were once thought not to exist (at least not observably) until the relevant instrument was invented that could measure them. At the time, your current argument ("there is no measurable physical/chemical basis for their existence, therefore it cannot be determined
that they do indeed exist") would have been logically sound and dismissive of their existence. Did this mean at the time that they did not exist, and would you have been classified as superstitious for believing in them? Why or why not?


Two of your examples, (sound and gas), were always perceptible, but I understand your point.

These physical phenomena obviously existed before we were able to directly perceive and measure them.

If I lived during the time these things were not known or directly measurable or perceivable, and I believed in their existence, then I would have to wonder what the basis for this belief was..

If I insisted on their existence completely on faith, then yes, I would probably be thought of as superstitious by those who did not hold the belief. If I only proposed their existence hypothetically with a logical theory that predicted their existence, then no, I doubt I would be considered superstitious.

The difference with your examples however, is that these are all physical things. If I believed they existed and that one day we could conceivably invent an instrument to detect and measure them, I would at least have a logical case for my belief to be confirmed in future.

If I believed that these things were not physical, then there could never be such an instrument to detect them, and logically any claim of their existence could never be confirmed.. Essentially I would have faith in the logically impossible, the unfalsifiable, the indefinable.
edit on 23-3-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: veracity




Reincarnation is regarded as an everyday matter of fact truth that is learned and accepted from birth just as the grass grows, flowers bloom, humans are reborn. I don't know how the western world got so off track.


Western world is too much into Judeo-Christian kind of believes. Or like spygeek lol.

I was in Nepal a few months ago, in a remote area near Anapurna. One of the things that I was astonished I've met a lot of people that never heard about the city Jerusalem lol.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
Where and how was it that this supposed "consciousness" we supposedly possess was deemed to be so supposedly important?.

Should I venture to guess that it may be in religion and religious beliefs, where we are conditioned to be so narcissistic in assuming we are so important and entitled to eternal life after death?.

I'm not religious at all mate. I arrive at my own conclusions based on my own teachings. Thinking there is a life (or form of continuation) after death is not narcissistic. You can't even prove there isn't. Nobody can. That's the point in this thread.


While we cannot absolutely prove there is not a continuation of consciousness after death

I got spygeek to say this, yay!


All of these theories state that consciousness is a physical, biological process.

The hypothesis that consciousness is separate from physiology has no supporting scientific theory.


But they are still theories? Still only ideas?

Regarding consciousness after death, Biocentrism is one scientific theory. I have the book, it's a good read!



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: spygeek
Objectively speaking, death is the cessation of all biological function. It is the end of biological life.

The claim that there is life beyond death requires that life be redefined as something non-biological, non-chemical, and non-physical.

This redefinition is not logically possible.


And what of the start of all biological life? If only the biological/chemical/physical can exist, then how do you explain the origin of the first piece of matter?


I love this question.


What you think about the answer?

Do you have answer yourself?


Nope not in the slightest, but I love the question being presented as part of this discussion.

You said it yourself, scientists don't know.


Physicists are still invesigation this



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join