It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
EnemyOfTheSane
Sorry man , but the thing that bugs me about these statements is the sheer ignorance shown toward the fact that the human brain decays after death ........ i agree with "some" people that the brain will dream away immediatley after death , but once the decay starts I seriously doubt there is anything left of the "person" or mind after that crucial stage , even dreaming is far fetched without oxygen etc. Science is taking a dump on religion and refusing to flush it .
undo
okay, let's look at the double slit experiment.
photons are shot at 2 slits in a metal plate, one photon at a time, behind which is a screen the particles smash into. the photons pass thru the slits and interfer with each other, creating an interference pattern on the screen in which is seen multiple bands of hits. an interference pattern is what you see when the peaks of waves (like waves of water) hit a restraining barrier. so the photons are behaving like waves. however, when a recording device is put into place to see what slit each particle goes thru, the photons stop acting like waves, stop interfering with each other, and start acting like particles and hit the screen in 2 rows directly behind the slits.
to find out if the recording device is causing the effect, the part that records the data is turned off, however the sensor is left on. the particles go back to acting like waves. so it's not the mere act of sensing, but also the act of collecting the data in memory. this means that when there is nothing recording the data, the photons are simple probability, existing in a state of what if. particles are not solidifying from the waves, because there's no reason for them too. they are just probabilities until something records their actions.
is there anyway to explain this outside of the idea that the conscious action of recording data, causes the data to become 3d reality?
MysterX
reply to post by Bedlam
By that literal definition of the physical processes that happen to our bodies upon death, the reality seems to be..our energy is transferred alright...only not into an etheral, airy spirit body, able to interact with the Universe...but into...bugs, worms and bacteria.
Not as touchy-feely an idea is it.
angryhulk
Like my grandparents always said to me; If you have a positive atitude then good things will come. If you have a negative atitude then life can be difficult because you make it difficult for yourself. Sort of fits in nicely with this mans theory of our conciousness playing a bigger role in how our lives and/or the universe around you unfolds.
MysterX
InTheLight
Somewhere in my quantum scientific musings, I believe - perhaps naievely - that all energy transforms into something else.
If that is actually true, and with respect is is in no way an original idea of course, then i'm afraid it does actually mean that there is only death for the person.
Why?
Simply put, if the Human 'personality', which includes among other things - our general personality in terms of attitude to life, to others, to belief systems, to politics, to war, to peace, to love and hate, likes and dislikes and also our experiential memories, our personal histories..who we are...is lost.
Turning all of that into 'another form of energy' means logically, what we are, were or may have become is going to be irrevocably altered, changed and altogether 'not us anymore'.
The energy, flowing through your light fixtures and computer for example isn't alive, it doesn't have experiential memory, it just flows.
Going with the flow is one thing, but changing from a thinking and feeling Human entity into some 'other form of energy' could literally mean we become nothing more than a power source for something else to use.
I don't see the attraction to becoming a light body, if that light body happens to be a desk lamp.
There is mass confusion about the double slit experiment, so don't feel like you are the only one who has been led down the path of excessive meadow patty fertilizer by pseudoscience explanations like "What the bleep do we know?" etc, to lead you to a false conclusion like that. I made this thread for you and all the other confused people:
undo
is there anyway to explain this outside of the idea that the conscious action of recording data, causes the data to become 3d reality?
The end of that statement is a key to my scientific hypothesis, which is that many humans have difficulty coping with the idea of the end of their own existence. In the past they would make up any fairy tale to explain why their existence wouldn't end. Now fairy tales are out of favor and people need "scientific" reason to believe something, so along comes Lanza and comes up with a scientific looking replacement for the old fairy-tales, but it's not really scientific because real science is published in scientific papers and what's cited in the OP is a popular book, not a scientific paper, so he didn't prove anything.
0bserver1
Robert Lanza claims the theory of biocentrism says death is an illusion
You mean that's what's going to happen to you and me because that is the scientifically supported logical explanation for the result of death. But all the people who read Lanza's book and click their heels together three times and say "there's no place like home" won't die and certainly won't have worms crawling on them, because, well that's just gross and saying we can live forever just sounds a whole lot better. In one sense, Lanza may have a point that people do create a mental fantasy about eternal life and that can become their perceived reality, at least the thought that they won't really die. So that much of Lanza's idea I can buy into. But, it's a delusion, and the people who think they won't really die will die like everybody else and they will ignore your post to the contrary because they've established their own fantasy just like Lanza said they could.
Bedlam
When you die, the structure of what makes you a particular individual, the memories, experiences, and changes gathered over a lifetime are all unstructured, and become noise. The thermal energy leaves your body, you become room temperature, and then bugs, nematodes and bacteria consume the chemical energy of your body.
And as much as we would all like to believe this, there are also scientific explanations for these experiences which have nothing to do with consciousness outside the brain, but we prefer to dismiss those because among other reasons, we fear death and don't want to think our consciousness dies when we die.
DestroyDestroyDestroy
The idea that consciousness is independent of the brain is often backed by first hand accounts of awareness in a comatose state; i.e. a person who has been anesthetized prior to a major surgery may have an out of body experience and witness doctors operating on him or her.
That gave me a chuckle to imply that 2010 was old. His ideas are much much older and more primitive than that, some preceding the advent of science, which even Deepak Chopra's glowing review admitted:
NorEaster
I was kinda hoping for something more ground-breaking, but then the publishing date is 2010, so I guess I should've known better. Oh well.
Don't forget some "ancient wisdom traditions" had virgins being sacrificed to appease the rain gods to make it rain, so just because something was believed in ancient wisdom traditions doesn't mean they are good ideas. In fact the bad ideas outnumbered the good ideas, so saying it's based on "ancient wisdom" is more of a negative than a positive despite Chopra's effort to put a positive spin on it though new agers love woo statements like that so it should help sell the book.
Indian physician and writer Deepak Chopra stated that “Lanza's insights into the nature of consciousness [are] original and exciting” and that “his theory of biocentrism is consistent with the most ancient wisdom traditions of the world which says that consciousness conceives, governs, and becomes a physical world.
That idea was around in primitive times but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny today. Just one example of that is, look at the instruments we have built to look at the universe in parts of the electromagnetic spectrum that humans have no ability to perceive (radio, microwave, infrared, x-ray, gamma ray). The idea that our perception is based on animal observation through senses, like visible light may have actually once been true, but it's far from true now, as is Lanza's hypothesis.
Biocentrism argues that the primacy of consciousness features in the work of Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, Berkeley, Schopenhauer, and Bergson.[6] He sees this as supporting the central claim that what we call space and time are forms of animal sense perception, rather than external physical objects.
undo
reply to post by InTheLight
what i found interesting was how it said, these events were in suspended animation, existing and not-existing at the same time. they were here, there, everywhere. but doing much of nothing till they were recorded. so you record the data, draw conclusions and record those, and move forward in sort of incremental revelation, if you will. the question you seem to be asking is, can we take the random chaotic mush of probabilites and erect our own reality?
Arbitrageur
You mean that's what's going to happen to you and me because that is the scientifically supported logical explanation for the result of death...and the people who think they won't really die will die like everybody else and they will ignore your post to the contrary because they've established their own fantasy just like Lanza said they could.
I just don't buy the New Agey/Theosophic line.
undo
reply to post by Bedlam
I just don't buy the New Agey/Theosophic line.
i think quantum physics predated theosophy.
so do you believe quantum physics is just a religion?