I think I may have logically theorized there is an afterlife

.

How much sense does it make to require material proof of an Energy phenomenon ?

IMO ...None ... the proof is purely observational .

So which side of this debate is being irrational ?

The videos posted on page 1 contain all the necessary scientific information to begin to understand the nature of consciousness .

But not one question regarding the information has been presented .

This leads me to the conclusion that people are ignoring the information .

That is the definition of ignorance .

.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by VinceGG

 

Your brain decays just like your body.

When i toss a CD in the fire the information on the CD isnt magicaly stored somewhere in a alternate plane of reality.

Right, but how do you really "know" that?

Matrix theory and multi-verse theory allow for many realities to be existing side by side. It doesn't mean your going to be aware of it. Much like a tuned TV signal in the air. Your not going to pick up on it if your not in tune with it. With that being said. Your conscious self could be spread over many different dimensions or realities that your not aware of because your "self" is tuned into one. The sad fact is that you may even have to live another mundane existance over and over again ad infinitum..

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by VinceGG

 

Your brain decays just like your body.

When i toss a CD in the fire the information on the CD isnt magicaly stored somewhere in a alternate plane of reality.

You are assuming that the brain stores information and contains your consciousness.

I don't agree. I see the brain as a transmitter/receiver of consciousness, which is EVERYWHERE (just like gravity). Every brain taps into the same consciousness 'field'. The complexity and the 'quality' of a brain is directly proportional to the amount and the quality of the information it has access to. Just like a better radio will receive a clearer signal than a cheap radio. It will probably also produce a better quality sound.

There is quite a bit of scientific research pointing towards this idea. And if you think about all the mysteries surrounding the brain and consciousness from this perspective, they suddenly make sense.

I am personally convinced that this will be our new paradigm in the not too distant future...

soulwaxer

Looks like the poster above me was proposing something very similar to what I was typing at about the same time...



soulwaxer

What are you without your ego/body/brain/memories? Logically thinking you cannot be any different than every other "soul" out there. The body is the only thing that separates us. How can one consciousness differ from another? This is the perfect solution. Too much wishful thinking in this thread.

It has been discovered that REAL sacred geometries (as opposed to the travesties discussed on the internet that are often confused for them) encode the map of all levels of the afterlife, as well as space-time itself. Study the research here.

In order to understand the mathematical concepts that are the key to deciphering the information that sacred geometries encode about all levels of reality, you will need to study some background material here.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

A over active imagination of a deluded person.

People invent things that justify their beliefs all i time.... every creek in the floor or gust of wind turns into a ghost. Youll notice the majority of ghost hunters turn out to be FAKE or discover nothing other than hesitant farts, tree branches, or hand prints.

edit on 21-1-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

Whoa...hold on there guy...I'm a pro myself...and I want to logically explain that conciousness goes on, scientifically...so don't lump us all into a bunch...I'm working with some cool ass guys to research this theory...

Text I guess the question to ask is does "the soul" have mass?...and is it a form of "energy"?...otherwise the logic may not hold true.

reply to post by isyeye


@ isyeye

Good thought-- Often wondered that myself.

If scientists are right and if the universe is expanding then what is it expanding into? Must be a substance other than this terrestrial universe. Couldn't be terrestrial because then we would have a collision of two masses wouldn't we?

Wouldn't that prove to us that there is a some kind of a non terrestrial substance existing? What propels the universe to expand? What source of energy exists for the universe to expand into?

If the universe contains the same substance throughout and the source that it expands into is the container, then what is that container being contained with? Another different source?

Then if all of this is true why would it be impossible for the soul to be in like manner in the terrestrial body?
A soul of one substance has a container of another substance which is called a human body. Why is it so ridiculous to think this when science is also thinking the very same reasoning?

Text Mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles. Basically, it can change states, become another form of matter, or become a form of energy and does not disappear into nothing.

reply to post by VinceGG


Don't quite follow you but quite interesting. You say that Mass can neither be created or destroyed. Then how is the universe expanding? Isn't the substance of space considered mass? Something is being created if the universe is expanding, wouldn't you think? Either that or the terrestrial part of the universe is shrinking and giving the appearance of expansion.

If the universe is expanding then the dark matter has to be also expanding Then what holds the dark matter in check or is it being contained? If the dark matter is expanding into whatever its container is, then does it ever stop expanding? Does its container have a container? Does expansion require mass and energy? I assume it requires energy because how else would it expand and I assume it requires mass in order for it to be moved.

Oh well ---

Originally posted by Murgatroid

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Your knowledge on the subject is religious in nature
Religion annoys me.
Your response is based 100% in belief.
Belief is something I tend to reject in any acceptable model of reality.

The sheer IRONY of fundamental atheists who label others as "religious" fanatics is incredible.

They are FAR more fanatical than any religious cult.

Atheism is an idiot's belief as much as any other religion is.

Why? Because it's a belief.

It's based on NOTHING factual.

Atheism is just another Illuminati mind control Religion with the same stealth agenda.

Atheism and religion are BOTH part of the SAME agenda.

Both are nothing more than stealth mind control tools.

Nope
Not proper atheism
Atheism is simply a non belief in a deity..nothing more, nothing less
not a knowing that there is no deity mind you...just no actual belief (waiting for proof one could say).

Gnostics are the annoying ones...
I am an agnostic atheist...meaning I have no actual knowledge..therefore I don't believe in a deity at the moment.
This can change based on evidence presented..but for now..total sideline sitter on the subject

What your going on about, and which is indeed a religion, is gnostic atheists...they know matter of factly by some supernatural power they and they alone have that there are no deities, period.
Those annoy the crap out of me...gnostics in general, be it theists or atheists.

But that little headbutting had nothing to do with atheism..thats just overboard skepticism about all things paranormal (no deity was being spoke of). He simply believes there are no ghosts, period...
Which is fine...but it is a belief...he wasn't simply disbelieving in ghosts..he pushed a belief forward of his own that he has supernatural knowledge of...nothing supernatural.

Which is purely faith based.

But that is neither here nor there. a hardcore Christian can also have no belief in anything supernatural (well, outside of deitys, demons, and angels anyhow).

I am a agnostic atheist...I personally find that the most rational of choices..I want proof, I don't deny possibilities, but I am not going to believe in something until I see some actual proof.

reply to post by WhoKnows100


I suspect you misunderstand me here
I say bible thumpers and both sides of the issue to simplify the whole path to date.
There is many "bibles" in my comment..was just suggesting overall the belief and faith based. I spent about 8ish years immersed in many theistic communities, from the apologetic Christians whom gave me some good debates, wiccans, new age types, ghost hunters and psychics, etc...was a fun and educational ride..but I found no answers there.
I also have spent plenty of time playing in the skeptics sandbox on this issue...and the best they could come up with was electromagnetic coincidences and I was lying..which is fine, I certainly wouldn't believe my story..and they shouldn't..gotta keep a sharp eye..and I am rarely if ever trying to convince random people of anything..I just want thoughtful answers to what can clearly be seen as a near ridiculous comment.

I will say one thing though. the faith based community (be it Christians, pagans, even muslims) are far more open to discuss unusual things..but that I think comes from their embracing of things that don't make sense to begin with...understandably a hard nosed skeptic may eventually build a wall around themselves and dismiss anything that doesn't conform to their knowledgebase. Unfortunate..skepticism is meant to help learning, not hamper it, but I guess some people need faith even when claiming that is what they are against. Bit ironic imo.

But ya...in regards to belief (be it Christians, muslims, jews, new agers, etc)..they all "know" the answers (always different mind you) and they all show me bits and bobs in their books to confirm loosely what they are saying is true..so long as you already believe their interpretation and can see things through their eyes.
Which is a issue to begin with. Being a realist, I don't see things how they see. I am practical and skeptical as mentioned.
And I certainly see religion as a stumbling stone towards personal connection. If there is something more, books and icons only help in retarding the growth of a person towards that personal connection and enlightenment because religion is not personal...and if the connection is nothing personal..then I don't care much about conforming to the one size fits all universe.

And I still go back to, I don't know what a ghost it.
Frankly, it could be dead relatives, interdimensional aliens, angels, demons, proof of telekinesis, who knows..thats where I am though...my journey continues.

.

Some of you may benefit from this resource .

www.victorzammit.com...


.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
When i toss a CD in the fire the information on the CD isnt magicaly stored somewhere in a alternate plane of reality.

I noticed that you said 'when' instead of 'if'. Is throwing CDs in the fire something you do often?

Originally posted by micpsi
It has been discovered that REAL sacred geometries (as opposed to the travesties discussed on the internet that are often confused for them) encode the map of all levels of the afterlife, as well as space-time itself. Study the research here.

In order to understand the mathematical concepts that are the key to deciphering the information that sacred geometries encode about all levels of reality, you will need to study some background material here.

Be careful when you use terms like REAL. Mathematical theories are not proven by any means. They are simply formulas that add up. That doesn't mean we know what the formulas represent or how to interpret it. Sacred geometry is more circumstantial than anything else.

Originally posted by bloodreviara
So far as science can tell consciousness is linked directly to our
biology, a good example of this is Alzheimer's, by effecting your
biology you lose all sense of who you are and who others are,
also cases of extreme brain trauma also reinforce this, if who
we are was an energy and not our biology your idea would
have more credence to it. who we are stems directly from
our biology and not a hidden soul.

I understand what your saying...perhaps ones life on earth is a memory not needed after death, however...not if the energy is immortal, for lack of a better word.

Originally posted by VinceGG
I'm a longtime lurker of this forum and today as I was talking about religion with one of my friends. I had come up with what seemed like a pretty solid theory. I felt it was important enough to not only search the forums for a similar theory, but to also spend an hour or so on the forums replying to threads I have previously read.

The law of conservation of mass, states that the mass of an isolated system will remain constant over time. Matter in the universe never just disappears completely. Mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles. Basically, it can change states, become another form of matter, or become a form of energy and does not disappear into nothing. I believe that consciousness/soul/spirit follows the same principal after it is released from our bodies.

What are your thoughts?

edit on 21-1-2013 by VinceGG because: Grammar

Your thoughts are nothing 'new', but I agree you're probably right to a certain degree.

Here is the main question to your thought process, OP:

Yes, matter can neither be destroyed, nor created. Yes, matter is a form of energy transference, but does matter transfer in such a way that the information retained in its previous material state (matter during life) is somehow retained, intact, after that same matter has been created into another form (postmortem). So, far I have not seen any convincing evidence that this is possible though the laws of physics. But who knows, right?

-TheGhoster

This has been brought up many, many times in the past. The problem however is inherent when you look at the biological and chemical processes that occur after death. A person's body basically releases its energy relatively slowly over time, with some going into the air as decomposition gas, some going to nurture the soil, etc...So while I do believe there is an afterlife, I am skeptical that there would be enough energy to comprise the "soul" after a body physically dies.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Blue Shift

 

When I die, the entire universe and all of reality, including everything that ever was or ever might be, will vanish into nothingness.

And when you are still aware/conscious... will you say... I am nothing?

I say that now, in anticipation of being nothing. When I'm dead, I won't have the consciousness or awareness to call myself anything, even nothing.

And you know this how?

An assumption?

yup... that's what I thought.

If you want to bring the idea of 'soul' or 'spirit' try starting like this:


What is the experience of seeing color? People say it is photons hitting our eyes... that is not the experience seeing, that is the cause for experiencing seeing color.

So what is the experience of feeling? People say chemicals in the brain - but that is not the experience of feeling, that is the cause of feeling (at least the apparent cause, ignoring brain in a vat arguments/etc)

If one wished to negate materialism all they have to do is begin at this point - the difference between *experience* and the *cause* of experience. You say that the ONLY thing that certainly *is* is feeling/experiencing. everything beyond that, the brain, the sensory organs, the universe, is unproven.

You can never prove to anyone else that what you experience is real, but in the same way, you *know* for a fact that you experience/feel things, regardless of what the cause of experience is. - eg. i feel 'tired' right now. maybe my body is worn out, maybe a computer is sending my brain that signal, maybe ive been drugged... who knows.. but i am DEFINITELY, 100% feeling 'tired' right now.

From there on as a guide, avoid the arguments of dualism and how the cause becomes the experience, because you can't console the subjective (internal) with the objective (external), despite neither being wrong on its own.


I hope this made sense.. my tutor told me this in first year of my philosophy degree and it took me a while before I grasped it.