God theory: I attempt to prove the existence of God (mind you I said 'attempt')

reply to post by JR MacBeth


let me ask you a question:

If the brain operates on impulses, and there is no soul, but only those impulses, how is it that YOU feel pain? If the body is cut, perhaps the brain can become aware of the pain, because the impulses are cut off, like if a wire is cut in an electrical system and the energy is no longer running as a current, but still, how would you be aware of this? Having no soul, there would be no way to say how it is that you feel pain?

In addition, the soul has two phases, one connected to the body, which is really nothing more than what we call the ego. And the other phase is the higher part. In Eastern Philosophy, the Supreme Soul is Reality. So, just as a person may die, but Nature continues on, so I would conclude that just because the body dies, the Supreme Soul (Reality) does not die. This would of course imply that our true nature is identical to this Absolute Reality, the only barrier is our ego which perceives our body as our true self, even though it is just a temporal vessel for the soul.

edit:

It's not that the soul survives death, as in a fire proof substance surviving being burned, but rather the Supreme Soul never actually is born into the world, and so if it is unborn, it can never have the possibility of dying.

The Will is God, God is the absolute creator, meaning he is the absolute will. The lower will is a contemplation, which contemplates this absolute will. For man, there is either a pure will (contemplation of God), or a mistake or error in thinking, which leads to an imperfect will. Take eating, for example, as humans we instincively eat, so we can say we have a will to eat, but eating means we are continuously becoming body, and not striving in the opposite direction towards unembodiment (pure will/will unattached to physical objects). This is why master yogis do not eat, they instead gain energy from their pure will.

The pure mind, is the supreme soul, which is God, this is why our true nature is God. You ask how it is the mind can experience pain, and as I asked, if the soul didn't exist, but only brain impulses, how is it that you feel pain? If you are claiming to never feel pain, you are claiming to be a pure yogi, which means your will would be detached from body.

The body does not complete the soul, but rather the soul, because it is overabundant, creates the body, like a pitcher of water filled over the top, it pours outwards, such is the nature of creation (like the sun pouring fourth its rays, not just to itself, but to other).

if the mind was separate from the body, what would it feel that would be in pain? If we refer to the theory of reincarnation, the mind separate from body, will once again reincarnate, so rather than the mind feeling pain, it is that the mind experiences the karma of its past actions. If the mind was completely pure, it would feel no pain, nor would it reincarnate (it would be God).

Even if who we are is just the collection of particles (this definition is refers to the ego), there is still the unifying consciousness that is aware of these particles, this awareness must be something separate from these particles.


[edit on 21-7-2010 by filosophia]

Originally posted by filosophia

In addition, the soul has two phases, one connected to the body, which is really nothing more than what we call the ego. And the other phase is the higher part.

First off, this is pure supposition. I'm not attacking you as, at a certain point, this applies to either side of the argument.

Again I would ask that why if a God can exist without a creator why couldn't souls have existed without a creator and this part called an ego, desperate to find meaning, created the concept of a God? Under your definitions, it really is no more or less probable and neither can be proved.

Originally posted by lellomackin

Originally posted by filosophia

In addition, the soul has two phases, one connected to the body, which is really nothing more than what we call the ego. And the other phase is the higher part.

First off, this is pure supposition. I'm not attacking you as, at a certain point, this applies to either side of the argument.

Again I would ask that why if a God can exist without a creator why couldn't souls have existed without a creator and this part called an ego, desperate to find meaning, created the concept of a God? Under your definitions, it really is no more or less probable and neither can be proved.

Since God is not physical, it can not be proven the same way that you can prove that heat burns things. The experiment is all in the mind, resting on metaphysical logic. The higher phase of the Soul is God, meaning it has no creator, just like God. They are the same. The Christian trinity of God-Jesus-Spirit, is really just a revision of Plotinus' three hypostasis' of reality, the One, the Intellect, and the Soul, they are three phases of the same thing.

As I stated earlier, opinions differ because of the logic involved. If I were to speculate that God was created from the sun making love to the moon, there would be a logical flaw (how the sun and moon precede God who is supposedly the absolute origin).

If you are looking for a physical proof of God, you will not find one. The only proof is the divine light within the mind, which is technically psychic and not physical.

[edit on 21-7-2010 by filosophia]

reply to post by lellomackin


Good stuff. I have no real opinion on this matter, only questions and more questions. I think anyone who has a strong opinion on topics as difficult and complex as these, is joking themselves.

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by lellomackin

 

Good stuff. I have no real opinion on this matter, only questions and more questions. I think anyone who has a strong opinion on topics as difficult and complex as these, is joking themselves.

I disagree, and I am willing to argue with you on this point. I find that people who assume a sense of agnosticism because they can not understand the complexity of real Philosophy, and then claim that others are just as ignorant as themselves, are also fooling themselves.

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by lellomackin

 

Good stuff. I have no real opinion on this matter, only questions and more questions. I think anyone who has a strong opinion on topics as difficult and complex as these, is joking themselves.

I disagree, and I am willing to argue with you on this point. I find that people who assume a sense of agnosticism because they can not understand the complexity of real Philosophy, and then claim that others are just as ignorant as themselves, are also fooling themselves.

The real funny thing is that complex philosophy is based on simple child like premises lol.

reply to post by juveous


it is on a moral level, the difference between good and evil, and the power of good over evil.

reply to post by filosophia


You make a good point that if someone simply does not understand the complexity of a philosophical theory, and so says that the author of that theory is just as ignorant as him, is only fooling himself upon his own level of ignorance.

However, I also would say that authoring a strong philosophical theory and having a strong opinion, are far from the same. A strong theory must be thought out and rationalized using logic. It must be put through tests, almost like a scientific theory, and be willing to change if evidence calls for it. A strong opinion doesn't need to have any of the previous, rather just an overly drawn ego that is willing to go to lengths to back it up. It very well could be irrational and illogical, and still be a strong opinion. That is a very dangerous thing.

About existence and non-existence: So the same goes for this argument, and especially for THIS argument. THERE IS NO WAY any one can be certain of how our universe came into existence (at least as of yet), but there can be strong theory's on how, and there is. When someone says "this way or that way is DEFINITIVELY how it happened" they are strongly opinionated and in danger of closing themselves off to other possibilities that may be valid. That is like a fundamentalist Christians or Muslims point of view, and is dangerous to say the least. Imagine if science was like this.





[edit on 22-7-2010 by LifeIsEnergy]

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by JR MacBeth

 

let me ask you a question:

If the brain operates on impulses, and there is no soul, but only those impulses, how is it that YOU feel pain?...Having no soul, there would be no way to say how it is that you feel pain?

I have no problem with a "soul" beyond the brain. But it is interesting to see how you emphasized "YOU", which suggests recognition of a personal/individual aspect to our experience, which is not considered the greater reality within Eastern thought. You go on to say...

In addition, the soul has two phases, one connected to the body, which is really nothing more than what we call the ego. And the other phase is the higher part. In Eastern Philosophy, the Supreme Soul is Reality. So, just as a person may die, but Nature continues on, so I would conclude that just because the body dies, the Supreme Soul (Reality) does not die. This would of course imply that our true nature is identical to this Absolute Reality, the only barrier is our ego which perceives our body as our true self, even though it is just a temporal vessel for the soul.

I'm not sure I would agree that our "ego" perceives the body as our "true self", perhaps a few people do...relevancy? Really, in Eastern thought, the idea of "self" is an illusion (if I understand correctly). I would venture to say that it is an illusion that requires some explaining. It begs a great-big, "Why?" Why is "our" experience such as it is. We are all "god", in reality, according to Eastern philosophy. What is the reason for it all?

The Will is God, God is the absolute creator, meaning he is the absolute will.

Ah, the "Will is God"...that clarifies it. At least the term has made it into the picture somewhere, that's a relief.

The lower will is a contemplation, which contemplates this absolute will. For man, there is either a pure will (contemplation of God), or a mistake or error in thinking, which leads to an imperfect will.

"Lower will?" The term "will", as traditionally used, is certainly not God, so I see we have a further clarification with the addition of the word "lower", and then "imperfect". A "contemplation" you say? An "error in thinking" too...I'm afraid there appears to be an error in thinking here, yes. The "will", as traditionally known, is a function of the soul, a faculty that allows us to decide, choose a course of action. It's usually coupled with what is normally called "Mind", and it is within the functions of mind, or intellect, that "contemplations" occur, not the will, which again, is about choice, and action.

Take eating, for example, as humans we instincively eat, so we can say we have a will to eat, but eating means we are continuously becoming body, and not striving in the opposite direction towards unembodiment (pure will/will unattached to physical objects). This is why master yogis do not eat, they instead gain energy from their pure will.

Appealing to "instinct" seems a bit off here. I have an instinct for breathing, does that mean I "choose" to breathe, in any meaningful sense? A bit more of an extreme example than eating, I will grant you, but here again, things get muddled when the words chosen are so interchangeable. In this case, will = desire. And so, "pure" will would be? "Pure" meaning perhaps "noble", as in the noble desire for "unembodiment"?

The pure mind, is the supreme soul, which is "God"...

I think I get the message at this point. EVERYTHING is God. Whether it be Mind, or Will, or "Supreme Soul", it's all "God", and further, WE are are God...

...this is why our true nature is God. You ask how it is the mind can experience pain, and as I asked, if the soul didn't exist, but only brain impulses, how is it that you feel pain? If you are claiming to never feel pain, you are claiming to be a pure yogi, which means your will would be detached from body.

Here's what I actually said: "Can the "mind" (soul?) experience "pain" without the "body"? Clearly, if the death-surviving "essence" bears any resemblance to what we define as the individual person, then the answer is YES. The body is hardly "required" to experience "pain", because the worst pains imaginable, are not of the body at all. Have you ever "lost" a loved one? "Where" did it hurt?"

The following is how you "answered?"

if the mind was separate from the body, what would it feel that would be in pain? If we refer to the theory of reincarnation, the mind separate from body, will once again reincarnate, so rather than the mind feeling pain, it is that the mind experiences the karma of its past actions. If the mind was completely pure, it would feel no pain, nor would it reincarnate (it would be God).

No need really to invoke reincarnation. Again, you are using the term "mind" and "soul" interchangeably, but if thinking is not rigorous, then neither would we expect speech to be precise. But putting aside how the "mind" feels "pain", let's look at "pain" again. You have focused on physical pain, and only now brought in "karma" as a kind of expansion on that, and yet have dodged the greater issue that "pain" has a much broader meaning. "Emotional" pain, for example. The pain of losing a loved one. These are "real" pains, that most might agree exceed that of physical pain. Would these "pains" survive death (especially since they require no "body" to be experienced)? I can only guess this is why you brought up karma, and yet, our past actions, strictly speaking, good or bad, still would not address the specific issue, of a type of "pain" surviving death. Further, one could go on to the "positive", and entertain the notion of "love" surviving death.

Even if who we are is just the collection of particles (this definition is refers to the ego), there is still the unifying consciousness that is aware of these particles, this awareness must be something separate from these particles.

Well, I've personally never seen ego "defined" in any way like what you're saying, but I perhaps again, we're dealing with "interchangeable" words. Sounds more like the term "body" should have been used, but I don't want to split hairs.

[edit on 21-7-2010 by filosophia]

Don't take this the wrong way, but too much still sounds like the bewitching yogi at the 1960's ashram.

JR

I'll take a stab at how God was created....

First you have to go back to quantum physics of which everything is made. In the quantum world everything can happen simultaneously. One particle can be in two places at once. Also, a huge factor is that time is an illusion. Time DOES NOT move. We move through time. There is only one eternal moment and everything within that moment is forever changing. Instead of thinking of time on a linear scale, imagine in a vertical scale. There are an infinite amount of levels (dimensions) layered in one moment and everything that has ever been, or will ever be is all happening within that one moment...because TIME DOESN'T MOVE. Thereby, it's easy to say...that God has always been and will always be. There is no beginning of God...because time is NOT linear and doesn't move.

There is another component of physics that has no beginning or end and that is energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only change its molecular character....thereby my theory is that GOD is intelligent energy because it's a natural fit. Everything in the universe is made of "God Energy"...thereby there is nothing but God. ALL that IS.....is God, the divine intelligent energy that has created everything of "himself...from "himself".

Now you ask why did God created this 3D world instead of staying as pure energy in just an ethereal world? That's easy. Think of it this way. Let's say you have studied your entire life about being an astronaut. You have read everything there is to read about. You know it backwards and forwards. There is nothing that you don't know about being an astronaut. You have all the book knowledge in the universe of being an astronaut. Now....create a 3D world. Put your energy inside a 3D form (human) and actually EXPERIENCE what you already know. To experience BEING an astronaut allows you to put yourself in to virtually UNLIMITED situations involving an astronaut to experience your book knowledge. Everyone knows that to have book knowledge (the all wise) on something is not even close to actually experiencing what you know and experience gives you further knowledge. Thereby God...created the 3D universe to experience that which "he" already knows....to bring knowledge to higher level. God is forever expanding and gaining wisdom from our 3D experiences because WE (collectively and everything else in the universe) ARE GOD.

reply to post by ptmckiou


Intelligent energy? Please link me to some sources about this if possible.

If energy has intelligence, as in awareness/memory of its experience and therefore holds information on this experience, that may change mankind's understanding of life, dramatically. I am not very familiar with quantum physics, but from what I understand or have read, I have not seen this exact argument made. I have read about particles and atoms having intelligence, but not the energy that provides its forces, am I wrong? Again, I have said this numerous times, if humans find out that energy is in fact intelligent, that would change so many aspects of humans understanding of life, on a scientific level as well as on a religious/spiritual level.

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by filosophia

 

You make a good point that if someone simply does not understand the complexity of a philosophical theory, and so says that the author of that theory is just as ignorant as him, is only fooling himself upon his own level of ignorance.

However, I also would say that authoring a strong philosophical theory and having a strong opinion, are far from the same. A strong theory must be thought out and rationalized using logic. It must be put through tests, almost like a scientific theory, and be willing to change if evidence calls for it. A strong opinion doesn't need to have any of the previous, rather just an overly drawn ego that is willing to go to lengths to back it up. It very well could be irrational and illogical, and still be a strong opinion. That is a very dangerous thing.

About existence and non-existence: So the same goes for this argument, and especially for THIS argument. THERE IS NO WAY any one can be certain of how our universe came into existence (at least as of yet), but there can be strong theory's on how, and there is. When someone says "this way or that way is DEFINITIVELY how it happened" they are strongly opinionated and in danger of closing themselves off to other possibilities that may be valid. That is like a fundamentalist Christians or Muslims point of view, and is dangerous to say the least. Imagine if science was like this.





[edit on 22-7-2010 by LifeIsEnergy]

why would you think a strong theory is dangerous?

It doesn't matter so much how the universe came into being, the Buddha did not preach about that, rather, the truth is about transcendence, overcoming the ego.

there is really no reason to try and understand how the universe was made, the only purpose is to purify the mind through knowledge. When you gain knowledge, you have an epiphany and realize the theory of everything. For the moment, but things change, yet the theory still holds the same. You may think this is just abstract theorizing, but the premises stay the same over the years. They must be based on something if I can remember them. I'm just saying this scientifically speaking, because it is the truth. Analyze it however you will.



[edit on 23-7-2010 by filosophia]

You said:

why would you think a strong theory is dangerous?

Why would you misconstrue what I said? LOL! Did you not read my post?

I said:

A strong opinion doesn't need to have any of the previous, rather just an overly drawn ego that is willing to go to lengths to back it up. It very well could be irrational and illogical, and still be a strong opinion. That is a very dangerous thing.

You said:

It doesn't matter so much how the universe came into being, the Buddha did not preach about that, rather, the truth is about transcendence, overcoming the ego.

PS. I have said nothing about Buddha Gautama's teachings. Please re-read what I posted and then reply if you have an argument to make. Thanks brother.


ETA: just seen you add this

there is really no reason to try and understand how the universe was made, the only purpose is to purify the mind through knowledge. When you gain knowledge, you have an epiphany and realize the theory of everything.

Huh? What just happened? I thought this post that YOU made was God theory: I attempt to prove the existence of God and isn't "God" thought of as the creator of the universe? Kind of lost me now.


[edit on 23-7-2010 by LifeIsEnergy]



[edit on 23-7-2010 by LifeIsEnergy]

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy

why would you think a strong theory is dangerous?

It doesn't matter so much how the universe came into being, the Buddha did not preach about that, rather, the truth is about transcendence, overcoming the ego.

Why would you misconstrue what I said? LOL! Did you not read my post?

A strong opinion doesn't need to have any of the previous, rather just an overly drawn ego that is willing to go to lengths to back it up. It very well could be irrational and illogical, and still be a strong opinion. That is a very dangerous thing.

PS. I have said nothing about Buddha Gautama's teachings. Please re-read what I posted and then reply if you have an argument to make. Thanks brother.


ETA: just seen you add this

there is really no reason to try and understand how the universe was made, the only purpose is to purify the mind through knowledge. When you gain knowledge, you have an epiphany and realize the theory of everything.

Huh? What just happened? I thought this post that YOU made was God theory: I attempt to prove the existence of God and isn't "God" thought of as the creator of the universe? Kind of lost me now.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by LifeIsEnergy]

[edit on 23-7-2010 by LifeIsEnergy]

I think you are losing yourself. Why is a strong opinionated theory a dangerous thing? To me or you, or to all of us?

Well your picture is of the Buddha, and besides I use Buddhism whenever I need to get a point across if it happens to fit, so don't think of that as specifically for you. The point is, is you need to transcend the universe first before you can start to think about it. The only way you can do that is with the mind, by seeing the light of truth within the mind.

the consolation of philosophy explains it.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by filosophia]

[edit on 23-7-2010 by filosophia]

Ok, I see what is going on here and on that note I will leave this discussion.

Two fingers up, peace.

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by ptmckiou

 

Intelligent energy? Please link me to some sources about this if possible.

If energy has intelligence, as in awareness/memory of its experience and therefore holds information on this experience, that may change mankind's understanding of life, dramatically. I am not very familiar with quantum physics, but from what I understand or have read, I have not seen this exact argument made. I have read about particles and atoms having intelligence, but not the energy that provides its forces, am I wrong? Again, I have said this numerous times, if humans find out that energy is in fact intelligent, that would change so many aspects of humans understanding of life, on a scientific level as well as on a religious/spiritual level.

If particles and atoms have "intelligence", then why does it not sound reasonable that the energy they are made from is intelligent? There is no proof (yet) of intelligent energy, but then again, we are but in our infancy of learning about the quantum physics. We actually know next to nothing about the quantum world and how it operates.

There are those that theorize that the universal consciousness is the "glue" that holds the atoms together. To date, we haven't been able to detect the "glue" but physicists know it's there. That would make universal consciousness the creation of all things...God...the divine intelligent energy. There are many quantum physicists and particle physicists trying to find that "glue" that creates energy into matter and holds it all together. THAT would be God himself...energy...has always been and will always be (since time does NOT move)...is everywhere and in all things. There is no place...that God is not.



[edit on 23-7-2010 by ptmckiou]

Originally posted by filosophia
The pure mind, is the supreme soul, which is God, this is why our true nature is God.

There's an higher principle than the mind called manomaya purusha (the detached witness).

I believe God to be the supreme purusha.

[edit on 24-7-2010 by D1ss1dent]

Originally posted by filosophia
So, basically I give you my God theory, and you critique it in some way, and I defend or clarify the theory. Sound good?

First rule of God (note: these rules are not hard and fast, more like guide points)


1b) God is not only the absolute creator, but also has the supreme Perfection out of any other thing. God is absolutely Perfect in every way, and thus can not be guilty of error (evil).

1c) God is transcendent to all things, having none of their imperfections, but also has an image of Itself within everything, so that God is both imminent and transcendent, being the highest thing and the soul of all things, and since the soul is immortal within all things, the contradiction disappears when you view this from the perspective of God, but appears to be embodied when you look towards the lower world.

(the first rule can be added to to describe all the different characteristics of God)
2. (following from 1c): The lower world is thus created by God, and a part of God enters into this world, as a lower soul, so that the soul is both connected to body (embodied), and also has a part of it in the highest realm. Thus, the soul is both divine, but also embodied.

3. Since the first rule is God and his characteristics, and the second rule is Soul, the third rule would be the connection between these two, the mind. The mind, just like the soul, has two phases. The soul has a higher and a lower embodied, and the mind is both psychic and physical, so that the mind can contemplate mental ideas, but also is connected to the body. The proof of this is physical pain. If the mind was not connected to body, an individual would not be able to feel this pain in their mind or explain the pain (hot/cold, intensity of pain, location).

4. Since the mind can experience pain, a natural desire is created to avoid pain. This is why the mind recoils at harmful things. On an intellectual level, a wise man can say that the self experiences pain when the mind is attached to body, and so if the mind was detached to body, there would be no pain. Thus, a mind free of body, would have no pain. This mind, free of body, would be the higher part of the Soul, meaning it would be equal to God. So rule 1 is God and its Supremacy, rule 2 is the Soul and its higher divine part, and its lower embodied part; rule 3 is the mind and its psychic/physical nature, and rule 4 is that the mind can be directed to its highest point, being equal to the highest point of soul, which is equal to the Supreme Absolute. Thus, there is a way to the Divine, because the divine God does not completely leave the lower creation, but rather stays as the highest part of the soul, even though this soul is connected to a lower body and thus enchaining the Soul.



if we were to have a rule 5, it would be evil or error

5. Evil can not have power, because then it would have emanated from the supreme Good (God). So evil is rather an error or miscalculation of the divine. God has no imperfections to it, and thus has no error to it. The soul and mind are also spiritual creations of God, and have very little error, the universe too is very ordered, and so there is very little error, the only evil that exists is a result of creature's mortality. If every creature was immortal, there would be no evil in the world. Why would anyone cry over murder if it is impossible to murder? But if everything was perfect, there would be no creation, no diverse forms, and God would not be a creator, but rather a boxed in theoritical idea that could be contemplated by no one. And since God involves both creation and contemplation, it must expand outwards from itself as a lower and inferior reality. Evil exists in this field because it is separate from God, however, through contemplation, it can return to God, meaning nothing is so evil that it is absolutely evil and thus nothing. If there were something Absolutely Evil, it would be nothing, and so we would say it does not exist.

--------------------------------

Okay, that's it, now it's your turn.

OK rule 1 b... God is absolute creator and he created the universe. Everything that stems from this creation does he create? I can see imperfection in the way biological systems behave , did he create that?

I have more but anyways onto rule # 2!!!!

So God creates a "lower world" .... Creating something of less quality than optimal for all beings is not "perfect" nor would a "perfect" being have a part that is "lower" as you say about "God enters into this world, as a lower soul" So a part of him is lower than the other? That is not equal and both cannot be perfect either. Creating with imperfections is also imperfect.


Rule 3 and 4 now.

Pain ... hmmm what of it? And what is pain is pleasure (Bondage, S&M , cutting , etc.) Is pleasure pain then or pleasure? Weird huh?

"Mind free of body would have no pain" A body free of mind wouldn't either so whats the point? Also the mind tends to gravitate towards harmful things .. not away from them. That is why we have desire. Desire for sex, drugs, fatty food , guns, war, porn , eating meat , destroying earth , a lot of bad stuff I tell you.

Back to # 2 cause even though it was covered well ....

EVIL.!!!!!! OYG! (oh your god!) OK, Evil and well whatever you perceive to be evil exists in this world created by you god. So he creates evil and causes us to be subjected to it . hat is not perfect or benevolent. More like malicious and malevolent.

Now don't give me that free will crap argument that we "choose" evil or not. If it didn't exist or wasn't perceived no problems stemming from it would arise.

I cannot walk on 12 feet if I wanted , clap with one hand , eat cow caviar or fly a donkey (high on my list). Where is my choice in that if the means to do so does not exist? I have no choice so is that obstruction of free-will?

Why can't your "perfect" god include "know evil" on that list? We would just not be able to choose because it would never occur kinda like a car driving down a rainbow or such. OK taht is it for now.

I LOOK FORWARD TO UR REPLIES AND NICE POST!

[edit on 24-7-2010 by IamBoon]

Originally posted by filosophia
The pure mind, is the supreme soul, which is God, this is why our true nature is God.

There's an higher principle than the mind called manomaya purusha (detached witness).

God, I guess, is the supreme Purusha.

[edit on 24-7-2010 by D1ss1dent]

reply to post by D1ss1dent


Yeah the state within meditation that cause duality to vanish. There is no I perceiving that , just pure tranquility, free from ego, body , and thought. Some Buddhas say they can maintain this state even while going about everyday activities and some get lost and die in this state!