I Don't Understand Death, Nobody Does!

originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: spygeek

aha I am sorry, you are right, I assumed that you have no experiance. My mistake!

No harm done =)

can you then meditate for longer periods of time without effort?

Certainly.

can you stay at least three hours in NATURAL silence without thought, effort and any movement, perfect stillness within and without? - this is very important.

Yes, I can and have.

If there is ANY kind of resistance you will not advance in "spiritual" development...and after a while you can truly enter "the void". And "there" "you" can learn about death if you want or anything else. Google samadhi, satori or kensho, this is what I am pointing to...This is the sweet fruit of hard practice of true meditation, in my opinion.

Ah, now we are entering contradiction territory.. If you are meditating in "NATURAL silence without thought, effort and any movement", then any "learning about death" cannot occur, as that would require thought. If you are entering a state of perfect stillness and stop all thought, then the state will be broken as soon as you have any thoughts.

I personally do not find Samadhi to be what it claims. It is not a state at which you communicate with God or 'the source', it is only Satori, or Kensho, with another name. Kensho and Satori are a state of looking into yourself and realising self-awareness.

Nothing external plays a part in meditation, it is an excercise of looking into your own mind. Invoking Hindi religious beliefs does not justify any other definition.

In deep natural meditation many experiences will occur - before entering "the void", depending on your own "spiritual" development.
For me the first "experiance" in natural silence was of "chakras" and "prana" and it only goes on and on...From weird to weirder, that is why science in relation to meditation and real nature of reality is failing like I do with dancing, imho : )

This is all happening in your own head though. No external influence is required or evident. This is my point. A scientific explanation is not required to understand that anything "learned" or "experienced" during meditation is the product of your own imagination and (sub)consciousness.

Death requires no consciousness, this can not be achieved through meditation.

Reality/universe does not care about anything, it is what it was, is and will be. If anything at all, I would say it cares about true unconditional love and we are learning to do that in our life cycles. As animal or human or other beings. ...Well maybe? this is what I think for now from experiance. This is also what religions, spiritual and philosophical systems have in common and I think there is a good reason for it. And in advanced stages of meditation when one is in "the void", the importance of pure love gets understood.

It is not necessary to enter "the void" to understand the importance of pure love.. I agree that the universe as a whole does not care about anything, though of course, being parts of the universe ourselves, we do care about things, like love.

we can interpret reality with the way of science (external) or our "minds" (internal).

These are one and the same, there is not division. Science is a product of our minds and a tool our minds can use to understand reality. You appear to be presenting a false dichotomy.

And internal interpretation is what can lead us to answers like what happens after death, etc,... for now. I believe that science will catch up and than science and spirituality will merge ... someday.

Science is internal interpretation of external physical phenomena, and it has led to answers about things like what happens after death. No amount of meditation or self-reflection will ever provide an answer to such a question though, as it is entirely reliant on your own conscious and subconscious machinations.

I like to use both also, and I am very happy to read that you do that also and that you meditate - this was a big happy surprise for me!

I'm glad to have made you happy =)

a lot of people are not so open and stick to science a bit too much, imho!

You appear to be equating an understanding of science with a rejection of the spiritual and metaphysical, it is not.

Well whatever the truth is about death. We will soon find out. this is one thing we can both agree on : )

Ironically, as soon as it comes, we wont find out anything about it, and will cease to know anything at all..

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
I agree with the author of this thread that our knowledge of death is somewhat limited. We know about the physical side of things, but not the non-physical.

Anything "non-physical", is non-existent by definition, and not "a side of things" at all. Name one "non-physical side" of a thing that can be logically said to exist.

The topic of dualism (mind-body problem) seems to be key to this thread — either you believe in some type of distinction between physical vessel/body and mind/consciousness or you believe they are one and the same.

Very well put, and absolutely correct.

While I cannot cite scientific evidence for my beliefs, I feel there is a distinction between mind and body — due mainly to a combination of intuition and rational thought.

So you hold a belief in dualism? Can you describe the rational thought that lead you to this conclusion, and how you overcame dualism's many contradictions and flaws? Could you explain what the basis is for the "mind-body problem" is for you, besides 'they feel separate'?

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: angryhulk
I understand it as you do, however we do not understand it perfectly. In my opinion, nobody does.

We don't understand anything perfectly. We are imperfect creatures who interact with our reality using a variety of even less perfect filters -- perception, body, language, etc.

Name something we DO understand perfectly.

Not sure what you're getting at. The post is about death my friend, nothing else.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: Mianeye
It's all spending and recycling of energy, that's the whole meaning with life and it's evident everywhere.

I don't believe in a conscious state after death in any form.

I think that's unfortunate. I believe 'something' continues. Just ending our existence doesn't make sense to me.

with every religion telling their followers that there is life after death, and doing it for thousands of years, of course it doesn't make sense....thought, dreams, philosophy, etc...are all the product of chemical processes happening in the brain....once these processes end due to physical death, that's it.
as a side note....I'm still amazed that we, as a human beings, still believe in things that have no proof or evidence to their existence. this is in direct opposition to our logical and critical thinking skills, which by the way, is the true reason why we have kept the human population from becoming extinct, and not the belief in mythical beings.

What about conciousness though? Or is that what you mean by 'thoughts, dreams, etc'.

As a side note, I'm not religious.

You're awful confident in your belief, but that's all it is. You haven't died, so you don't know.

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: angryhulk
a reply to: spygeek

Thanks for sharing mate. Like I said at the beginning, it's just an opinion and I'm essentially thinking out loud.

Yes I agree that death is the end to all biological life, however I guess I'm looking past that.

But looking past that, to what?

What else is there to death, besides the end of biological life?

Isn't that what we are discussing?

What new alternative definition of death, or life, are you inventing here?

I can assure you that I didn't invent the notion of a possible life after death.

Beliefs that are not based on what we actually know, that outrtight reject physical reality and instead have their basis in superstitions and assumptions about what we might imagine about what we can't or don't know, are not rational, logical, or realistic.

But you don't know anything at all?

There are some very smart people in the world that are convinced of a life after death. Why should I believe you?

"All you have to do is die, to find out you didn't...
And won't you be surprised when you do...
Seeing as this would be impossible for the dead..."

It simply does not make sense. It says nothing. It is incomprehensible.
It's not a statement of opinion, as it doesn't state anything. It's a self-refuting logical cul-de-sac.

How am I supposed to respond to something like this?

I never said that, and to answer your question, say what you like, just don't bite anyones head off.

originally posted by: angryhulk
Not sure what you're getting at. The post is about death my friend, nothing else.

What I'm getting at is that you seem to think the mystery of death is something profound, when it isn't. It's just one more thing we don't understand.

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
I agree with the author of this thread that our knowledge of death is somewhat limited. We know about the physical side of things, but not the non-physical.

Anything "non-physical", is non-existent by definition, and not "a side of things" at all. Name one "non-physical side" of a thing that can be logically said to exist.

You're proof, sir
It seems this man was essentially non-physical, however was said to exist. Interesting indeed.

One man even recalled leaving his body entirely and watching his resuscitation from the corner of the room.

Despite being unconscious and ‘dead’ for three minutes, the 57-year-old social worker from Southampton, recounted the actions of the nursing staff in detail and described the sound of the machines.

“We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating,” said Dr Sam Parnia, a former research fellow at Southampton University, now at the State University of New York, who led the study.

“But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn’t beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20-30 seconds after the heart has stopped.

“The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for.

It goes on to say

“There is some very good evidence here that these experiences are actually happening after people have medically died.

“We just don’t know what is going on. We are still very much in the dark about what happens when you die and hopefully this study will help shine a scientific lens onto that.”

I know you are very much a closed book on this topic but please, do continue to tell me how you know everything and we don't.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: angryhulk
Not sure what you're getting at. The post is about death my friend, nothing else.

What I'm getting at is that you seem to think the mystery of death is something profound, when it isn't. It's just one more thing we don't understand.

The mystery of death is not profound? When everybody dies? Are you sure you don't want to edit that post?

a reply to: Peeple

Wouldn't it be awesome, if our collective consciousness would have become a self aware energy being?

Well some would call that connecting to the "godhood" or, we were, are created by "god" and we recreate "god" or the matrix machine daily. Tap into it, its all fun or disaster depending on your mileage.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Everybody knows. It's just that nobody wants to admit it, likely out of fear or superstition. We bury our dead, a fact that has occurred and replicated throughout human history. The supposition that we are something that isn't buried, that doesn't decay after death, that perhaps floats away in the wind, is contradictory, paradoxical and nonsensical in all realms of reason

Likewise one could say the same about the shovel used to bury our dead; we agree its a shovel by convention, once upon a time it wasn't called a shovel.

Many believe there is sufficient evidence ( to their satisfaction ) there is more after death. Your conclusions don't erase their reality.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

We have a "religion gene"?

phys.org...

But while fertility is determined by culture, an individual’s predisposition toward religion is likely to be influenced by genetics, in addition to their upbringing. In the model, Rowthorn uses a “religiosity gene” to represent the various genetic factors that combine to genetically predispose a person toward religion, whether remaining religious from youth or converting to religion from a secular upbringing.

On the flip side, the nonreligiosity allele of this “gene” makes a person more likely to remain or become secular. If both parents have the religiosity allele, their children are also more likely to have the religiosity allele than if one or both parents did not have it. However, children born to religious parents may have the nonreligiosity allele, while children born to secular parents may have the religiosity allele. Having the religiosity allele does not make a person religious, but it makes a person more likely to have characteristics that make them religiously inclined; the converse is also true. All individuals, whether they have religious or secular upbringings, have a chance of defecting.

Rowthorn explained that the rates of defection from religious to secular and from secular to religious preferences depend on time and place. Read more at: phys.org...

a reply to: spygeek

Actually, the only reason the universe exists is because it exists. Before we came it know it existed, it still existed. The universe is not dependant on us for anything, yet we are dependant on the universe for everything

I see what you're attempting here. To refute the premise you presuppose that there is no co dependence. We are star matter we recycle back into star matter. Its like saying recycled steel will one day be used to make another car. The new car whether it acknowledges the source of the recycled steel or not is fundamentally made of old & new steel.

Put another way the Universe does need us as fertilizer - we are fertilizer to the soil; you can't dispute that. The "us needs it more than the Universe needs us" is just a play on words.

a reply to: Gumerk

Why have I been viewing a violet flame for 10 years now after a brief encounter with an owl? Why does it feel like it's massaging me with love and beckoning my curiosity? Why did this flame also turn green, yellow, and white at times? With respect to each their own -- I believe

You are truly blessed, nothing can take that experience away from you. Without Love this Universe I suspect would grind to a halt. The Objectivist would argue thats coming from self-interest, propagation of the species, determinism. But that to me doesn't preclude the idea that Love makes the Universe go round.

I can't tidy it up and bottle love to the sceptics satisfaction. Try living a life without love and tell me that that is being Human and I'll say that you are delusional. ( endorphins, religious genes etc still don't invalidate Love as a true phenomena )

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: angryhulk
a reply to: spygeek

Thanks for sharing mate. Like I said at the beginning, it's just an opinion and I'm essentially thinking out loud.

Yes I agree that death is the end to all biological life, however I guess I'm looking past that.

But looking past that, to what?

What else is there to death, besides the end of biological life?

Isn't that what we are discussing?

Apparently, however nothing has been presented yet apart from baseless conjecture.

What new alternative definition of death, or life, are you inventing here?

I can assure you that I didn't invent the notion of a possible life after death.

Indeed, however you are proposing the notion, which requires both life and death to be redefined.

Beliefs that are not based on what we actually know, that outrtight reject physical reality and instead have their basis in superstitions and assumptions about what we might imagine about what we can't or don't know, are not rational, logical, or realistic.

But you don't know anything at all?

Don't I? How so?

There are some very smart people in the world that are convinced of a life after death. Why should I believe you?

Why should you believe them either? Why should you believe anyone? Why should you not form an opinion on your own through a critical analysis of the facts?

How "smart" a person is can never be used as a measure of the rationality or logical consistency of their beliefs. Plenty of smart people hold irrational beliefs, it is only once you have examined the logic and reasoning behind the beliefs themselves that any judgement can be made on them.

"All you have to do is die, to find out you didn't...
And won't you be surprised when you do...
Seeing as this would be impossible for the dead..."

It simply does not make sense. It says nothing. It is incomprehensible.
It's not a statement of opinion, as it doesn't state anything. It's a self-refuting logical cul-de-sac.

How am I supposed to respond to something like this?

I never said that, and to answer your question, say what you like, just don't bite anyones head off.

I didn't bite any heads off, I simply pointed out the flaw in the statement and provided similar examples of incomprehensible statements.

Admittedly I was a bit snarky at the beginning of my reply, but I'm only human and it's frustrating when someone won't give you a straight answer..

originally posted by: spygeek
Anything "non-physical", is non-existent by definition, and not "a side of things" at all. Name one "non-physical side" of a thing that can be logically said to exist.

Consciousness itself (we know the brain is the transmitter, but not the physical basis for consciousness); dreams; emotions; relationships between living organisms; abstract nouns such as courage, fear and pride etc..

Do you deny that these things exist?

So you hold a belief in dualism? Can you describe the rational thought that lead you to this conclusion, and how you overcame dualism's many contradictions and flaws? Could you explain what the basis is for the "mind-body problem" is for you, besides 'they feel separate'?

It's hard to describe. Mainly, it's due to my experiences I have had in dreams and their nature. Combine with that NDE stories made by normal, sane, coherent and intelligent people. Yes, anecdotal evidence can be unreliable but there are cases where it lends credibility to a topic.

It's like having an exceptionally vivid dream that you can describe perfectly to others, but the description is not even close to the subjective experience that you need to have directly to understand.

I'm sure you have had at least one complicated, memorable dream that you know took place, but cannot prove nor demonstrate scientifically.

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
I agree with the author of this thread that our knowledge of death is somewhat limited. We know about the physical side of things, but not the non-physical.

Anything "non-physical", is non-existent by definition, and not "a side of things" at all. Name one "non-physical side" of a thing that can be logically said to exist.

You're proof, sir

Let's examine this "proof", and see how it stands up..

The first red flag indicating bias is in the headline of the article you reference: "First hint of 'life after death' in biggest ever scientific study"

Not only is this misleading, it is not an accurate representation of what can be inferred by the study.

At most, what can be inferred by study is that in the gap between clinical death and brain death, consciousness survives, and that brain death could possibly take longer to occur after clinical death than was previously thought.

It seems this man was essentially non-physical, however was said to exist. Interesting indeed.

Right off the bat, you make the claim that it seems this man was "essentially non-physical", despite the fact that his physical body was there all along. This betrays your own personal bias toward your own belief..

One man even recalled leaving his body entirely and watching his resuscitation from the corner of the room.

This is not unusual or inexplicable in any way.

Despite being unconscious and ‘dead’ for three minutes, the 57-year-old social worker from Southampton, recounted the actions of the nursing staff in detail and described the sound of the machines.

He was "clinically dead" for 3 minutes. "Clinical death" is defined as the loss of heart beat, nothing more. All this says is that his heart stopped for 3 minutes.

“We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating,” said Dr Sam Parnia, a former research fellow at Southampton University, now at the State University of New York, who led the study.

This is a slightly misleading oversimplification. The brain begins to lose function as it is starved of oxygen after the heart has stopped, "brain death" itself has been shown to occur anywhere up to several minutes after "clinical death".

“But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn’t beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20-30 seconds after the heart has stopped.

While damage to the brain begins generally within 10 seconds of the heart stopping, the timing of brain failure is much harder to predict. All this says is that in the case of this man, his brain survived longer than would typically be expected.

Clearly his brain did not die, or he wouldn't be around afterwards to tell his story.

“The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for.

This is again, not unusual or inexplicable, and falls inline with what can be expected from a person who has experienced clinical death, but had their heart restarted before brain death.

It goes on to say

“There is some very good evidence here that these experiences are actually happening after people have medically died.

This was stated by Dr. David Wilde, a psychologist who is a personal proponent of "life after death" with a vested interest in the concept's acceptance.

He is not a medical doctor, biologist, or neuroscientist.

Notice how he substitutes the term "clinical death" which has a distinctive definition, with "medical death", which is ambiguous.

If he were being intellectually honest, he would have said "“There is some very good evidence here that these experiences are actually happening after people's hearts have stopped".

“We just don’t know what is going on. We are still very much in the dark about what happens when you die and hopefully this study will help shine a scientific lens onto that.”

This is a statement of personal opinion from Dr. Wilde, who has no qualifications relating to medicine, biology, neuroscience, or neurochemistry.

He makes the argument from assertion that we "just don't know what's going on", and seems to think his psychological interpretation is not consistent with the accepted, biological explanation.

I know you are very much a closed book on this topic but please, do continue to tell me how you know everything and we don't.

I am hardly a closed book on this topic at all. I am very open to entertaining the idea. What I do insist on though, is that any "non-physical" explanation be supported by at least as much logical and evidential consistency as the physical explanation, before I will accept it.

At the absolute most, logically speaking, I can see there is a basis for a claim that people appear to be unconsciously aware to some degree when there is not typically expected to be any brain activity occuring. This is not evidence for "life after death", it is inconclusive evidence of consciousness existing longer after the heart stops than we typically expect or can currently reliably measure.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: spygeek

Actually, the only reason the universe exists is because it exists. Before we came it know it existed, it still existed. The universe is not dependant on us for anything, yet we are dependant on the universe for everything

I see what you're attempting here. To refute the premise you presuppose that there is no co dependence. We are star matter we recycle back into star matter. Its like saying recycled steel will one day be used to make another car. The new car whether it acknowledges the source of the recycled steel or not is fundamentally made of old & new steel.

Put another way the Universe does need us as fertilizer - we are fertilizer to the soil; you can't dispute that. The "us needs it more than the Universe needs us" is just a play on words.

You are strawmanning in the dark and missing point of what I was saying.

You claimed the universe depended on us for both its existence, and the meaning for its existence. I refuted this claim, and tried to explain how the inverse is actually true, if you consider us and universe as separate things.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: spygeek
Anything "non-physical", is non-existent by definition, and not "a side of things" at all. Name one "non-physical side" of a thing that can be logically said to exist.

Consciousness itself (we know the brain is the transmitter, but not the physical basis for consciousness); dreams; emotions; relationships between living organisms; abstract nouns such as courage, fear and pride etc..

Do you deny that these things exist?

Consciousness has in fact been reduced to neuronal interaction of the brain. The brain is in fact the physical basis for consciousness.

Abstract thoughts are a feature of human consciousness, they are ideas, not things. Emotions have neurochemical regulators, different regions of the brain have been identified as the seats of different processing.

So you hold a belief in dualism? Can you describe the rational thought that lead you to this conclusion, and how you overcame dualism's many contradictions and flaws? Could you explain what the basis is for the "mind-body problem" is for you, besides 'they feel separate'?

It's hard to describe. Mainly, it's due to my experiences I have had in dreams and their nature. Combine with that NDE stories made by normal, sane, coherent and intelligent people. Yes, anecdotal evidence can be unreliable but there are cases where it lends credibility to a topic.

It's like having an exceptionally vivid dream that you can describe perfectly to others, but the description is not even close to the subjective experience that you need to have directly to understand.

I'm sure you have had at least one complicated, memorable dream that you know took place, but cannot prove nor demonstrate scientifically.

How are dreams evidence of duality? How do you get from, "I dream", to "I dream, therefore I am not my body"?

originally posted by: spygeek
How are dreams evidence of duality? How do you get from, "I dream", to "I dream, therefore I am not my body"?

Why do dreams (or altered states of consciousness in general) occur? Sleep is relatively well understood, but not dreams. Sleep is needed to help repair, rejuvenate and recharge the body's cells and neurons, but why then do dreams occur if the purpose of sleep is likely to be what I mentioned before? Science cannot sufficiently explain, in its current form, why we dream. Dreams appear to be a gateway to another dimension/realm/state of existence.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: spygeek
How are dreams evidence of duality? How do you get from, "I dream", to "I dream, therefore I am not my body"?

Why do dreams (or altered states of consciousness in general) occur? Sleep is relatively well understood, but not dreams. Sleep is needed to help repair, rejuvenate and recharge the body's cells and neurons, but why then do dreams occur if the purpose of sleep is likely to be what I mentioned before?

Is it not likely that dreams are the result of sleep "repairing, rejuvenating, and recharging" the cells and neurons of the brain?

The leading hypothesis at the moment is that dreams are the result of the brain reviewing information, assessing experiences, reinforcing neuronal connections, organising memory, and regulating neurochemistry.. Kind of like a computer defragmenting.

Studies of people who have undergone extended periods of sleep deprivation have found that while their cognitive ability degrades the longer they go without sleep, when they do finally sleep, they dream vividly, and upon waking their cognitive ability is measurably restored.

This fits with the scientific explanation.

Science cannot sufficiently explain, in its current form, why we dream. Dreams appear to be a gateway to another dimension/realm/state of existence.

It can and does provide explanations of why we dream, each with varying levels of evidence and explanatory and predictive power.

The hypothesis that dreams "appear to be a gateway to another dimension/realm/state of existence", provides no explanatory power or realistic answers at all, and relies on a multitude of assumptions about these other dimensions or realms, whose existence is fundamentally undemonstrable in the first place.