Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is Death An Illusion? Evidence Suggests Death Isn’t the End

page: 2
86
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by reddwhite
reply to post by oghamxx
 


For example, light travels in particles and waves. When an observer no matter how far away is going to see the light it always travels in particles, when it won't. Be travelling in the presence of an observer it always travels in waves.



You're saying that with no observer light travels in waves, and when we try to measure the light (to observe), it goes back to particles, right? Right. I know this is what the field of quantum physics wants us to believe, but I'm still not buying it. It's too much like magic.


How can one test such a theory without observation?




posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Balkan
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I am a skeptic, but I've seen some compelling evidence for reincarnation. For myself, I had some strange dreams when I was a young child with adult-like emotional content and experiences I'm not so sure I could have imagined at that age. I also find the phenomena of dreaming/intuitions of loved ones after they have died (within hours/days) to be too common to be coincidence. Again, I've experienced this myself, and it was very intriguing. Do I believe in an afterlife? Souls? Reincarnation? I can't say for certain one way or the other. But I think there is interesting and compelling evidence that something of the consciousness does indeed hang around somehow/someway after the brain has ceased to function.


I, too, find it hard to believe that the dreaming phenomena after loved ones have died is coincidental. I felt my mom (or I guess her soul, as she was not physically with me) tap me on the shoulder just around the time she was pronounced dead at the hospice. I am sure she was saying good-bye to me. I know some people have to experience things to believe for themselves, but that sealed the deal for my belief of an afterlife. There is so much that we do not know, and I find it funny when people try to say once we die everything is over, because no one knows what is beyond death until it actually happens.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Xaphan
 


I would like to hear more about your theory of 'life' being the illusion. You seem quite certain by the sounds of things, so please could you share thoughts or facts with us ?



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by oghamxx
 


Nothing like misusing an Einstein quote to start the whole thing off with a resounding facepalm. Where in that did Einstein say that DEATH was an illusion? He suggested that time (past, present, etc) was an illusion. And even if he was talking about the afterlife would it matter? Would we start accepting the idea of an afterlife based on the idea that one brilliant scientist happened to think there might be one?

Most of the site appears to be an attempt to claim that time and perception are illusory and so is everything else. So death must also be an illusion. But in that case isn't EVERYTHING an illusion. It all just seems like wishy-washy, new-agey pseudophilosophy to me. Thus far everything about death we've learned scientifically suggests that it IS the end. There is no evidence that any of what YOU are consciousness-wise exists outside the brain. It'd be a nice thought, of course, getting to survive death in some other form, but that self-delusion didn't stop billions of others from going before us into the grave. It also doesn't stop pets does it? Are they conscious enough to survive death in some form? And what of the lettuce I had for my lunch? Why must the afterlife be so damned anthropocentric? Oh that's right, because humans are more self-aware about life and death than many other species are and thus we trick ourselves into pretending we are special, so special that we can cheat death.
edit on 26-6-2012 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-6-2012 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by BS_Slayer

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by reddwhite
reply to post by oghamxx
 


For example, light travels in particles and waves. When an observer no matter how far away is going to see the light it always travels in particles, when it won't. Be travelling in the presence of an observer it always travels in waves.



You're saying that with no observer light travels in waves, and when we try to measure the light (to observe), it goes back to particles, right? Right. I know this is what the field of quantum physics wants us to believe, but I'm still not buying it. It's too much like magic.


How can one test such a theory without observation?


That is a very good point. In the double slit experiment, because no one is looking, it can only be ASSUMED that a photon splits and goes through both slits. Not only is this improbable, what makes it impossible is the question of how in the world would a photon decide to go through the other slit???

If photons can decide where they're going to go, then this is telling us that on a sunny day when the sun is literally pouring photons down on earth, when we aren't looking, every photon aims for the windows of a house. Seeing as the outside walls of every house are lit up from photons smashing into them, we know that photons simply aren't lining up to go through the windows.

This means that in the experiment, if a single photon is splitting, then it is most likely smashing randomly into the walls of the slits, or shooting off to who knows where.

It's just a bad experiment.
edit on 6/26/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Agreed.

The double-slit experiment only proves how bad we are at interpreting quantum mechanics.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by BS_Slayer

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by reddwhite
reply to post by oghamxx
 


For example, light travels in particles and waves. When an observer no matter how far away is going to see the light it always travels in particles, when it won't. Be travelling in the presence of an observer it always travels in waves.



You're saying that with no observer light travels in waves, and when we try to measure the light (to observe), it goes back to particles, right? Right. I know this is what the field of quantum physics wants us to believe, but I'm still not buying it. It's too much like magic.


How can one test such a theory without observation?


I don't think it can be done. But, what CAN be done is to repeat the double slit experiment WITHOUT THE SLITS. Will photons then hit the back wall in a static pattern without an observer, but then return to single hits with an observer? If so, then the slits have nothing to do with how the photons behave. And if the slits have nothing to do with how a photon behaves, then how can it be affected by someone just looking at it? BUT! If the photons hit the wall in single hits whether or not they are being measured, then clearly the slits are doing something, and not the observer.

Now, instead of the slits being side by side, place one slit above the other. Will the static pattern run vertical instead of horizontal? If not, then again, the slits have nothing to do with the way a photon behaves.

One of my questions is: Is a photon a little spinning ball of energy? If so, when it is aimed at a slit, how come the spinning photon doesn't just curve and shoot off to somewhere else?

Didn't explain this very well, did I? Sorry. I'm just saying that more experiments are needed.
edit on 6/26/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
This probably made ATS when current and has no doubt been refuted by skeptics but, along the lines of the past, present and future all existing NOW I offer this interesting experiment.

www.newscientist.com...



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I honestly think we have but a small inkling of what's going on in the grand scheme of things.

Still, I'm skeptical to the notion of life after death. I'll keep it out there as a possibility, but it's still far fetched, imo.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
.


Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I got this quote from the link:


Wave your hand through the air – if you take everything away, what’s left? Nothing.


And this guy's an MD? Anyways, I thought it was funny.


Bottom line: What you see could not be present without your consciousness.


That's because you'd be dead or unconscious. This isn't rocket surgery. You cannot perceive it because you cannot open your eyes. But to assume it isn't there because you are asleep is ridiculous. Does anyone else really believe this?

The brain needs the body to survive. Without the body, the brain would shrivel up and rot. Hence the body, and the demise of the body, isn't an illusion.

So the outer world is the work of our brain? That would mean our brain itself is also the work of our brain. This seems to me a reductio ad absurdem.

Tell me how we are able to see without eyes. How are we able to feel without skin? How can we hear without the ears? How can we stand and walk without the bones and muscles. How does the brain get oxygen without the lungs, and blood without the heart?

Consciousness doesn't explain anything because it it doesn't exist on its own or outside the body.




.

Well Again I'll tell you ...You Are Wrong ..

From My approx 20 minutes without heart or brainwaves registering ..I left my body ..I was even more conscious than when in my body .

I recounted what was being done said and even what people were thinking ...

Consciousness is an EM phenomena problem is you have to experience death to observe this state of being .

Consciousness is Not dependent on the Brain in fact the brain may be a limiting factor .

There are people that see without eyes ..... more like they sense a pattern of energy ..

There are people with 5% of normal brain mass that a fully cognitive ..

The brain dependency argument is weak

.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Agreed.

The double-slit experiment only proves how bad we are at interpreting quantum mechanics.


Yeah, and I just realized how bad I am at remaining on topic. All my posts on the D-split experiment should be deleted.
edit on 6/26/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by R0CR13
 


Tell that to the numerous stroke victims out there whose "consciousness" and experience of life has been greatly restricted...




posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
.

reply to post by unityemissions
 


I've also dealt with brain damage .. I was supposed to be a vegetable according to the numerous doctors ...instead I spent 10 years healing .. end result my IQ went from approx 190 to 150
Brain damage does not diminish consciousness it diminishes the ability to control the body .
That's a distinction you should consider ... and bitterness never helps either .

.
edit on 26-6-2012 by R0CR13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by R0CR13
 


Approximately 190, eh?


At least I know you're full of it!



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by R0CR13
 


All you can do is assert. You're either a liar or you actually believe what you think.

Prove it.
edit on 26-6-2012 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 



I will ..as soon as you drop dead ....

.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by R0CR13
.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 



I will ..as soon as you drop dead ....

.


That's because you cannot. Someone with a 150 IQ would at least try.

Edit : and he would learn how to compose a sentence properly.
edit on 26-6-2012 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
.

reply to post by unityemissions
 


Jealous ? My cognitive abilities were of keen interest to the therapists so I've had numerous professional tests .

ATS sure has a lot of jerks ..

.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


I told you you need to DIE to experience it ... take your time ..no hurry

.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by R0CR13
.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


I told you you need to DIE to experience it ... take your time ..no hurry

.


That's your only proof? Ok....... this is hopeless

Coming from a man who's still alive no doubt. I'll believe you when you visit me as a ghost.

edit on 26-6-2012 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join