Theories About Death

page: 12
24
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


I knew of course that I would hit a raw nerve if I brought up the creation thing. But I have to be open and honest.

I never realized that the big bang had advanced beyond the theory stage to undeniable FACT, I mean theories can become so all-convincing over time that they suddenly become fact in the minds of those who want it to be.
Can you tell me when the big bang theory evolved into fact. I'm not tying to be a smartass I would really like to know.




posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
.

I think people are suffering from antiquated ideas of just what we are .

To gain a modern scientific perspective on the physics of consciousness watch this ..



.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Shema
 


Well there is a lot of tangible evidence for it as the Hubble Telescope can visually see 13.4 Billion Light Years thus we are looking back in time 13.4 Billion Years to the WMAP or Background Radiation Map. This Background Radiation is only 379,000 Light Years near the Big Bang.

The Map shows a wall of Microwave Radiation that was created by the Big Bang and this among other things when looked at in conjunction with the spread of a Galaxies in our Universe shows how this ultimate explosion of Matter and Energy that created Space/Time spread those Galaxies.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Thanks.

I have my own evidence that satisfies my logical mind for what brought life about while you have yours. At this point I feel the twain shall not meet and we could argue forever and get nowhere. Having said that I have enjoyed our chat and am glad I got to know you at least a little.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Shema
 


I enjoyed it also. I do not mind that someone has another idea or belief. For me it's all about being able to enjoy and exchange of information and a good debate.

Unfortunately some here have forgotten that topics are ment for debate and get all crazy when you have a difference of opinion or GOD FORBID when I post some proof to the contrary of their statements. LOL!

I like it when someone can prove me wrong because I feel it allows me to learn something new as well as prevents me from continuing to talk about something I am wrong about.

You seem to be a person who is capable of holding their own with class and dignity and has no desire from what I have seen to refuse to learn something.

When people REFUSE to even look at proof that is in contradiction to what they believe...it shows all of us why we have so many problems as it seems people would rather argue about a problem rather than talking about ways to fix it.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
…Many mediums (also some disciplines, I suppose) claim that "spirit teams" exist and that they consult with their own teams. I don't know that they actually do, but I referred to them, since I find that it's best to point to a well-known example when explaining something…

I actually do have a notion considering Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) and its relationship with the concept of Reincarnation. In fact, they are closely related, with the degree of interference being the determining factor. Let me see if I can be concise enough to keep from going over my word limit here.

Please humor me long enough to address the concept of “spirit teams”.
I may be too anal, but like to understand as much as possible…so –
You refer to the “spirit teams” in connection with mediums, but don’t necessarily state what “belief system” you align with. I am not digging for that. I am, though, wondering if this “notion” would be similar to the Buddhist belief in ancestral help(ers), and/or to individual helpers as described in the Urantia teachings…?
You say that the “spirit teams”…consult with their own teams. Do you mean that they consult among the other members of their team/s…or something else?

DID is generally traced to young childhood trauma - physical or sexual - and the mind's need to create a personality that can "handle" the abuse as a stand-in for the extremely vulnerable psyche of the child during the attacks. As the child grows older, the stand-in personality (in classic DID cases) becomes the go-to surrogate for any and all abusive situations (the neural pathways become much more pronounced and profound in this manner, and it becomes a default survival response)...

Cutting off the remainder of this reply, should in no way imply that I count it unimportant. But, my question goes to the “generally traced to young childhood trauma…” portion.
Do you think it possible for “later-in-life” traumas to produce similar results?

The point you highlighted with regard to “adult sophistication, talents, and physical predilections…that defy explanation” is one that might surely add to your argument (of interference).



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by WanDash

Originally posted by NorEaster
I actually do have a notion considering Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) and its relationship with the concept of Reincarnation. In fact, they are closely related, with the degree of interference being the determining factor. Let me see if I can be concise enough to keep from going over my word limit here.

Please humor me long enough to address the concept of “spirit teams”.
I may be too anal, but like to understand as much as possible…so –
You refer to the “spirit teams” in connection with mediums, but don’t necessarily state what “belief system” you align with. I am not digging for that. I am, though, wondering if this “notion” would be similar to the Buddhist belief in ancestral help(ers), and/or to individual helpers as described in the Urantia teachings…?


These "spirit teams" are recognized as existent within nearly all belief systems. This is because they do exist, even if they aren't actual teams, so much as small social groups that collect "organically" (for lack of a better term) around the very specific process of a material human brain "building" yet another human being. The physics reason for this takes a very long time to fully explain, but the "feeling" these post-corporeal people get (being in close association with this "gestation" process) is akin to what we call love, and for the exact same reason that we feel it when we "fall in love". It's based on the primordial existential imperative (Survival of self and kind), even if there's no real threat to survival involved. Like I said, it's complicated.


You say that the “spirit teams”…consult with their own teams. Do you mean that they consult among the other members of their team/s…or something else?


What I said was that the mediums consult with members of their "teams". At least, this is what they claim. I don't know if they actually consult with anyone.



DID is generally traced to young childhood trauma - physical or sexual - and the mind's need to create a personality that can "handle" the abuse as a stand-in for the extremely vulnerable psyche of the child during the attacks. As the child grows older, the stand-in personality (in classic DID cases) becomes the go-to surrogate for any and all abusive situations (the neural pathways become much more pronounced and profound in this manner, and it becomes a default survival response)...

Cutting off the remainder of this reply, should in no way imply that I count it unimportant. But, my question goes to the “generally traced to young childhood trauma…” portion.
Do you think it possible for “later-in-life” traumas to produce similar results?


There's no evidence that this is the case. From my own research, the human "personality" (my word for psyche) is very vulnerable to the personality of a post-corporeal human being as it just begins to develop (between ages 3-7, or so) and completely open to invasion before that age. It's the nature of sentience that allows the emergent system that is the human psyche to "reach back" and have a hand in its own ongoing development (its been called bio-feedback), but that capacity develops over years, as the brain and mind become more and more sophisticated in their "feedback" relationship. By the time a person becomes a teenager, the relationship is pretty solid, and it's not likely that it can be compromised by much of anything. That said, drugs and intentionally subjective mental states have been known to open access to varying degrees depending on the brain-mind relationship involved. That said, full-blown DID requires a memory cloud that is extremely devoid of contextual certainties. Only really young minds are that free of dense contextual structure.


The point you highlighted with regard to “adult sophistication, talents, and physical predilections…that defy explanation” is one that might surely add to your argument (of interference).


That was the red flag that put me onto DID as something that might relate to the undue influence of either an over-protective "team member" or even a rouge predator "spirit" - which obviously could happen if such a vulnerable child has no "team", regardless of abuse or lack of abuse as a trigger. It's a much bigger world than most people imagine.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Thank you for your concern regarding my weak reading ability. Rest assured, I have been quite successful as a protein chemist in real life. On the other hand, I simply don't like hearing myself talk (or write) nearly as much as you do.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHANQ
Thank you for your concern regarding my weak reading ability. Rest assured, I have been quite successful as a protein chemist in real life. On the other hand, I simply don't like hearing myself talk (or write) nearly as much as you do.




And I'm a CIA contract assassin. We're all wonderfully successful and exciting in our careers when we're on the Internet. Everyone knows this.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPECULUM
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 

actually we are others food, just as others are others food, we all must sacrifice so others shall survive, its how its works, but we forfeit nothing, other than our host flesh, no harm no foul
So, Heaven or Hell could be just a big pile of sh!+



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 





Any Lifeform that is Self Determinate must have an EGO to do so thus must have CONSCIOUSNESS. A CARROT is a Lifeform but it has no brain and thus cannot think or be conscious.


There is a sense of individualization that is most energetic inside the brain during thought. Individuation is a man made concept. The ego is a name of this concept. None of this is relevant to the consciousness which exists untouched in either case.



Any Lifeform on this PLANET that has a BRAIN no matter how Big or Small is SELF DETERMINANT to some extent thus has and EGO
. The brain is a symptom of the environment. It makes the schematic you call ego but it is as dumb to the ego as your computer is to the things you type about.

The biological-drive is defined as organic. The ego is unrelated. Like I said it is trickery. The biological drive is intrinsically linked to all life on this planet (and beyond). Our drives are externally produced.

I think you are on to something but got stuck on definitions. The brain itself is just another organ. It has a membrane which mirrors "reality" and aids communication. The heart has a comparably sophisticated neural function. What you seek is the source of mental energy, instead of 'brain'

The ego, well this is a curly one. It is non-existing issue (and the bringer of death). It is what can be deemed "I" by definition, when it can never be the "I", also by definition. I suspect you are defining the 'spirit' as ego...?



the ability to be self determinant is ability to have EGO.


Not really... This is definition of something you think happens but the operator behind this thought is not a self contrived definition and cannot be labelled in such a way.



All three of these things must exist together and one cannot exist without the other two.


Not really, but yes in a way. The the 3 aspects that make man and defined properly one of them can be the ego (in your context) but the idea dissolves as soon as it is framed. There are better ways to describe the trinity as far as I understand. I suspect the 'ego' model, removes man from it's animal roots.

My definition of the ego is like an image of a person as a cell.
There is an outer membrane that is the soul.
There is a spirit or nucleus, which is conscious to the extent of the membrane (and beyond indefinitely)
the nucleus owes it's existence to the things outside the cell, so it works as a conduit for the shared information being passed around. In this picture human beings are an enlightened species without a sense of self-hood. The ego is the map that the spirit creates by vibrating it's own image inside the cell. This is the mental map for you and I. It is easy to understand once you 'get it', though many people never will.

The difficulty in explaining these things is that they always change. The 'ego' cannot be defined as such. In essence there is no ego but in some perspectives it does exist, as a fragment of the past and you can't catch it, lol.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Probably a better definition for the ego is the sum of your "Karma".



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 




This FACT is that Matter is in a constant state of Quantum Evolution. What does this mean? It means that Quantum Particle/Wave Forms which completely comprise the makeup of Protons and Neutrons which are the particles of mass in an atomic nucleus...are in a continual state of by several Universal Processes...are becoming greater in complexity on first an Elementary level and then a Molecular Level.


If this is your own theory well done.

The only thing I think is lacking is acknowledgement of evolution per solar system. You referenced the big bang and ensuing changes as evidence of evolution but you do not seem to be aware of the changes brought by each incarnation of a solar system. Matter was evolving each time the solar system dissipated / collapsed...



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
What really amazes me about this thread is the number of declarative sentences from people who KNOW the structure of reality and are quite willing to pass their knowledge on to the rest of us. These declarative sentences contradict each other, of course.

My question to people who profess this knowedge is: HOW do you know with such certainity that you are correct? Did your Mommy tell you? Did you read it in a book? Did you have some sort of personal experience that leads you to believe one thing over another? The most believeable statements in this thread go something like this:

"I'm not sure, really. I've studied this as much as I am able and this has led me to be suspicious that X might be the case. There's enough evidence for me to suggest this as a working theory. I'm not certain, of course, but that's kind of the direction I'm leaning in for now."

You guys who insist "this is the way it is" really have no idea what you are talking about.
edit on 1/21/2013 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 



What really amazes me about this thread is the number of declarative sentences who KNOW the structure of reality and are quite willing to pass their knowledge on to the rest of us. These declarative sentences contradict each other, of course.

My question to people who profess this knowedge is: HOW do you know with such certainity that you are correct? Did your Mommy tell you? Did you read it in a book? Did you have some sort of personal experience that leads you to believe one thing over another? The most believeable statements in this thread go something like this:

"I'm not sure, really. I've studied this as much as I am able and this has led me to be suspicious that X might be the case. There's enough evidence for me to suggest this as a working theory. I'm not certain, of course, but that's kind of the direction I'm leaning in for now."



In what category does your post fall?



You guys who insist "this is the way it is" really have no idea what you are talking about.

Irony is beautiful.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
What really amazes me about this thread is the number of declarative sentences who KNOW the structure of reality and are quite willing to pass their knowledge on to the rest of us. These declarative sentences contradict each other, of course.

My question to people who profess this knowedge is: HOW do you know with such certainity that you are correct? Did your Mommy tell you? Did you read it in a book? Did you have some sort of personal experience that leads you to believe one thing over another? The most believeable statements in this thread go something like this:

"I'm not sure, really. I've studied this as much as I am able and this has led me to be suspicious that X might be the case. There's enough evidence for me to suggest this as a working theory. I'm not certain, of course, but that's kind of the direction I'm leaning in for now."

You guys who insist "this is the way it is" really have no idea what you are talking about.


Would like it if you showed where the contradictions exist and leave it at that.

What you have done is make a declaration against declarative sentences. Nobody but you is making declarations are they?



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Let me try again.

You REALLY need me to point out contradictions? Let's just go generic, shall we? (It's easier.)

"After death there is nothing, nada, zip. There is no life after death."
vs.
"After death we enter a spiritual realm, meet God & Jesus, yada yada yada."

Is that good enough for you or do you need more?

I'm amazed that people can get on this thread and insist their version of reality is the correct one. I repeat: Did your Mommy tell you? Did you see Jesus in a dream and HE told you? Did you read it in a book? HOW did you get to the point that you are completely certain what you believe reflects reality? Did you ever consider the possibility that you might be wrong? How do you explain other people who are certian of the opposite?

It boggles the mind to read statements from people here that insist they've got an inside track on capital-R Reality. How do you get to be so special? When I read something like the following:

"The Bible is the Word of God and you must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior or you cannot possible enter the Kingdom of Heaven and will rot in Hell for all eternity."

my impression is that this guy is completely delusional and there is nothing to learn from him except that he is to be avoided. In fact, under the right circumstances he could be dangerous to the health of others who dare to profess a belief different than his. He apparently cannot conceive of Reality as being different than what he believes. But when I read something like this:

"You know, I don't know if reincarnation is true, but Dr. Ian Stevenson's book, "20 cases suggestive of reincarnation" is a fascinating read and I don't know how to explain those cases away. It's really given me some thoughts to ponder."

my impression is that this guy is thoughtful and inquisitive and might prove worthwhile to engage in conversation with him. He seems pretty open minded to me.

The point is that unless you have been gifted with some sort of super power, how can you possibly be in a position to know, for certain, the structure of Reality? When you make declarative statement about the structure of Reality, why should anyone pay attention to you?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bowtomonkey
 


You are seperating the Human Brain from the Spirit, Ego...and then you also added...soul.

Let's make one thing clear...without the Brain...we have none of these things.

Also having an EGO is not specific only to the Biologic. We have Quantum Computers now and although much of this is Classified...since the Human Brain is a Biological Quantum Computer...it is not a distant leap to assume...and I say assume since I cannot acknowledge the reality...that a Silicon Quantum Brain...has not only an EGO but perhaps a Soul.

When you talk about the BIOLOGIC connection to a spirit or soul you are looking in too narrow of terms as it is VERY possible that Organic Biologic Life is not the only form of Life.

Our Brain allows us the form, construct and ability to become more than the sum of our parts. This is so since our Brains operate on a Quantum Level thus are accessing all Multiversal States. A Quantum Computer would be doing the same and be capable of having abilities close to or greater than our own Brains.

Since the very existence of our Brain allows us Ego, Sentience and possibly a Soul...so it must be for the existence of another Brain capable of the same but comprised of a different material.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by bowtomonkey
 


Matter is in a constant state of Quantum Evolution and as is the history of our Solar System...it was at one time Hot Plasma....basically...Hot Ionized Hydrogen Gas that gather by Gravities effect into our Sun and Planets.

However since the only way to get heavy elements is by the effect of a Supernova or by extreme Gravitic Compression well beyond Solar Gravitic Compression that is responsible for Fusion of Hydrogen to Helium...the current theories call for such heavy elements to be present in the Solar System either from such Supernova's or perhaps were created from the immense high temps. that existed at the time of the Big Bang.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


I see we have a lot of differences on meaning and I don't think that the multiverse quantum analogy shows a unified filed.

I don't believe that a computer has a soul / spirit. I know how a PC could be alive and what you suggest is not it. We are aware of the awareness of biological life that evolved on earth along with our own species.

I agree that biological life is a small spectrum of life. We are organismic and our immediate environment is crucial to our survival.

The brain is not center of life and you will never find it in any place, lol.



Since the very existence of our Brain allows us Ego, Sentience and possibly a Soul...so it must be for the existence of another Brain capable of the same but comprised of a different material.


I sometime query that. The ego is really just a whim and why not. The question is what for?

The record of who we are as created by the ego, is a mental map stored in the brain. I don't think it is of any use. It only tells us who we used to be based on limited perspectives. It gets annoying when people project who they think they are at you. It's like a dumb energy.





new topics
 
24
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join