What is there to do when you're dead?

Originally posted by zatara
Like many other people these days I am between jobs and must I keep myself busy. Well...that is not the problem there are not many moments that I feel bored and that is what my worry is about.

What is there to do on the other side. There is no internet, is there a science or art to study? I do not feel like communicating with other souls all the time...if you know what I mean. Anybody an idea what is going on and what there is to keep someone busy?

I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if I repeat what someone else may have said.

The "Other Side" is a gateway back into your higher awareness, so you will not feel and think as you do while in physical life.

When I take the dead who are hanging around their living relatives or other places across into the Light, I see them begin to "wake-up" from the dream that was their physical existence here.

Some choose to stay at what Monroe called Focus 27.. it's where the dead pass over into the light, where the Akashic Record is, where the golden city is, and where the huge park and lake are that people go to when sleeping and being astral to speak with their higher-selves (guides).... so that they can work to assist others who come across. You would be surprised how many choose this option.

Some choose to review the life they just finished and then proceed to plan out an Itinerary for their next physical experience here or on other worlds of experience within the duality stream/3D.

Some simply choose to move "up" back into complete Soul level awareness and move on to other offerings in the universe.

No matter what you choose to do you will never get bored, for boredom is a human trait only.

I hope this has helped to answer your question.

OBE...

This is a real thing not a Lesion caused experience. When astral and fully aware you will see the Silver Chords of others who are also astral., in the RTZ you will see and experience things other people are doing and so the next day you can speak to them about it in the physical as a form of proof.

Typical of science to think it knows everything, and even more typical tothink it's theories based on some observances are the only bigger picture.

[edit on 13-1-2010 by Tayesin]

reply to post by unityemissions


Yes, OBE's seem totally real, untill one comes back, ... then it seems as a dream. However the " real " world feels the same way when I'm out of body. perhaps we can only percieve the reality we currently occupy as " real" .

.. and even if I were to go as far as to say OBE's were simply perceptions received from a dying or malfunctioning brain, we must remember, .... that perception IS reality.

However I won't go that far,

this is from the bottom of the article you posted : " Further, the fact a few individuals are able to have out of body experiences at will suggest that the reason for their existence is not epilepsy."

Originally posted by Neo__
It's interesting to note that surgeons sometimes don't know if an operation was successful until the person "returns to consciousness". Where is the consciousness returning from? The answer to this seems to lie outside of conventional science. The brain appears to be but the physical organ that consciousness uses.

It's interesting to note that IT engineers sometimes don't know if a repair was sucessful until the computer 'reboots'. Where is the functionality of the computer returning from? The answer seems to lie outside conventional science. The computer appears to be the physical device that functionality uses.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by Neo__
It's interesting to note that surgeons sometimes don't know if an operation was successful until the person "returns to consciousness". Where is the consciousness returning from? The answer to this seems to lie outside of conventional science. The brain appears to be but the physical organ that consciousness uses.

It's interesting to note that IT engineers sometimes don't know if a repair was sucessful until the computer 'reboots'. Where is the functionality of the computer returning from? The answer seems to lie outside conventional science. The computer appears to be the physical device that functionality uses.

I don't believe for a second that human consciousness can be compared to running of a computer or a car or anything mechanical. Awareness is much more complex and much more mysterious than the workings of a computer. Awareness is sacred should be treated as such. I believe one day our society will come to realize this.

reply to post by IntastellaBurst


I most definitely don't buy into that popular line, "perception is reality". This seems nonsense to me. What I perceive can be delusion, as can anyone else's perception. Perception is not reality, IMO. Reality is interdependent on both the collective, inter-subjective, and inter-objective nature of the universe. Basically what I mean to say is that, reality on this earth is what we collectively agree upon, and interact with. I alone don't create reality. When I die, the universe goes on. If the earth vanished the next instant, the universe would go on. I'm not that self-important to claim that my perceptions have that much influence on what reality is.

As for the article, it was eye opening. I'm waiting to gather further data, before coming to any solid conclusion. As I stand right now, I still think this can be explained scientifically. Even if we're yet to put all the pieces together.

[edit on 14-1-2010 by unityemissions]

Originally posted by Neo__
I don't believe for a second that human consciousness can be compared to running of a computer or a car or anything mechanical.

Why not?

Awareness is much more complex and much more mysterious than the workings of a computer.

A difference of degree does not imply a difference in kind.

Awareness is sacred should be treated as such.

Why do you say it is sacred? It's as common as dirt.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by Neo__
I don't believe for a second that human consciousness can be compared to running of a computer or a car or anything mechanical.

Why not?

Awareness is much more complex and much more mysterious than the workings of a computer.

A difference of degree does not imply a difference in kind.

Awareness is sacred and should be treated as such.

Why do you say it is sacred? It's as common as dirt.

Because I don't believe that awareness is a physical process. I know that some say that consciousness is generated by the activity of the physical brain, but it could very well be the exact opposite. That is, our physical brain and physical bodies could very well be the result rather than the cause of awareness. Think about how you cast a 2 dimensional shadow on a sunny day. Our physical forms could be but a "3" dimensional shadow cast downwards from a higher dimension. We could literally be puppets on a string, unaware of who really is in control.

Awareness is not as common as dirt, as you suggest. I don't know many clumps of dirt that can dream of philosophy and quantum physics. The brain is a physical representation of "life", a life that extends beyond the solid, liquid, gaseous and electrical elements which our bodies and brain are composed of. Awareness can exists outside of the brain, and there are countless examples of this taking place. Patients have been declared clinically dead and then brought back to life only to describe later the conversations that occurred while they were dead. A mothers awareness of their child in danger, sometimes hundreds of miles apart, is usually put down to some uncanny "intuition" or coincidence. This is awareness outside of the brain.

Awareness is potentially the most powerful "thing" in universe. The brain is the physical computer, but without awareness it can't do very much but keep the body alive. It's awareness that defines us as individuals and expands with experience. It's awareness that gives us appreciation for music, art, science, philosophy. The brain is the mechanism that brings the physical world to the soul, another word for awareness. Awareness is found in the body, in the mind and in the spirit, (another word for energy).

The awareness of soul permits the real Self to first become aware of and then eventually to a realization of Its own image in body, mind and spirit.

Originally posted by Neo__
I don't believe that awareness is a physical process.

Ah, well, if you're speaking from a position of faith, that's different. All credit to you, you did say 'seems', 'appears' and 'I don't believe'.

Awareness is not as common as dirt, as you suggest. I don't know many clumps of dirt that can dream of philosophy and quantum physics.

Ability to philosophize and do physics is a rather exclusive definition of awareness. The common definition is much broader, and by that definition a dog is aware. Aware of what? Aware of the world, of other entities, of its environment.

You might ask how I think I know this. Well, how do I know you are aware? I can only infer it from your behaviour, that is to say, your interaction with your environment (which includes other entities, such as I). Your brain is a black box to me; I don't know what's going on in there. As for the mind you claim to have, I can't see any sign of it. So all I have to go on is inference, and comparison with myself.

And by that defintion, even a thermostat is in some sense aware.

The distinction between life and not-life is artificial and false. Mystics have always asserted this; we now have good scientific evidence of it, drawn from a variety of sources. Viruses straddle the boundary between biological life and not-life; many supposedly nonliving systems show characterstics generally considered attributes of life, such as homeostasis and reproduction. Vitalism, the belief that there is some hidden essence that animates living things, must keep that essence hidden if it is to preserve itself. The same is true of the Neoplatonist 'higher world' you are preaching.

As to your examples:

Patients have been declared clinically dead and then brought back to life.

Clinical death is not death. The dead cannot be resurrected. Clearly the brain is still functioning, whatever the EEG trace says. It is not implausible that under such conditions it would still take in sensory data and process it. These are things the brain does autonomously, anyway; consciousness is not involved.

A mothers awareness of their child in danger, sometimes hundreds of miles apart, is usually put down to some uncanny "intuition" or coincidence. This is awareness outside of the brain.

Not necessarily. First of all, you'd have to prove this dubious phenomenon really exists. That won't be easy. Next, you would have to eliminate the coincidence you so nimbly skip over. How will you do that? Finally, you would have to show that curious quantum phenomena such as entanglement--which may be curious but remain uncompromisingly physical for all that--are not involved.

Awareness is potentially the most powerful "thing" in universe. The brain is the physical computer, but without awareness it can't do very much but keep the body alive. It's awareness that defines us as individuals and expands with experience. It's awareness that gives us appreciation for music, art, science, philosophy. The brain is the mechanism that brings the physical world to the soul, another word for awareness. Awareness is found in the body, in the mind and in the spirit, (another word for energy).

The awareness of soul permits the real Self to first become aware of and then eventually to a realization of Its own image in body, mind and spirit.

All this, once again, is your opinion. You're entitled to it, but there isn't a scintilla of evidence to suggest that any of it is true.

I don't know how long it will take for someone to re-incarnate, I don't know the process, but if I am allowed enough time to imagine I would see how I could better myself for the next lifetime.

Great post, these kinds of subjects make you wonder on what happens next, but I wouldn't be to concerned about this yet.

Reply to post by Astyanax

So says your faith in the basis of your beliefs... For EVERY argument there is a counter argument despite an individual's opinion, of which you are just one of many. And that does NOT affect validity.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Astyanax


Yes, this is my belief and I don't have any those scintillas of evidence.

A thermostat and a dog, btw, are usually not defined as being "self-aware", and that's the commonly accepted difference defining the gap between humans, animals and inanimate objects.

As for proving a mother's awareness of their child in danger? Well I'm sure that at the time a mother is not about to go through the rigors of proof if she strongly feels her child is in danger.

Proof of the soul will come in time, I believe. And I believe it will come through the study of light and sound. But one would need an "open mind" to take this on faith before then.

Cheers.



[edit on 15-1-2010 by Neo__]

reply to post by Neo__


There are hints now. Foo fooed away by those so inclined to do so as Asty so aptly illustrates.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Neo__

 

There are hints now. Foo fooed away by those so inclined to do so as Asty so aptly illustrates.

I have no problem with skeptics. Lord knows that we accepted things in the past, hook, line and sinker, far too much. Our analyzing minds make for excellent science. But just as religions can expect too much out of faith so science can find it difficult to see the forest through the trees. Our emotions have to give way to the rational tests of the mind and our thinking will, in turn, eventually give way to a higher plane in our being, e.g. the intuition.

Intuition is the next step up for us. We will not only "feel" that something is right, nor will we merely "think" that something is right. We will begin to "know" something is right, immediately. This is, of course, my personal take on things and I have no scientific proof for any of this. It just seems right.

But however it turns out, I feel and think that I can say with all honestly that the scientific proof of the soul will change everything in our world. Everything. We will discover that we truly cannot die. Our bodies will die, but we will not identify our true selves with our body alone and therefore find that our true selves cannot really die. The dead will come out of the graves, as the biblical prophecy puts it. But it won't be the zombie apocalypse that some attribute to this prophecy. It'll be much simpler than that. Perhaps one day we'll create a radio or a television to communcate with the "other side". Imagine.

I think that everybody is a God of their own because you are your own soul so you are the only God. Nobody else is God in your world except you because they can't affect you as a God because you are the only one aware of your own existance and nobody else's (You're the projector and everybody else are the holograms). But then again you have to reconsider that if everybody that thinks they exist are the ones that don't exist then the ones that think that they don't exist are the only one's that do exist and therefore are God. Like a projector and everyone else is the holograms but only for the people that think they don't exist (because their god this time) Which theory do you think is right? First, second, both, or neither? I've been having a tough time with this one.

reply to post by Neo__

A star for your excellent post, Neo_. It's reassuring to know that there are people on this forum for whom an argument does not always have to be a quarrel.

To address just one point you made: scientists, and therefore science, often do rely on intuition. There are numerous classic stories of the intuitive leaps that carried famous men of science from a series of apparently unrelated facts to a great discovery. In science, however, intuition on its own does not suffice to establish truth; once it has been arrived at by intuition it must be rationally explained and shown by experiment post hoc. This sets truth free, so to speak, by placing it on the firmer footing of evidence.

Your own standpoint is an ancient one with a noble tradition. It arises from the belief that truth is best discerned by reasoning from abstract first principles, regarding physical evidence as suspect because it is derived from a flawed, less-than-ideal world. It goes back at least as far as Socrates. I cleave to the newer empiricist position, but I am certainly not unfamiliar with the elder tradition, nor do I wish to deride those who follow it.

[edit on 16/1/10 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Neo__

 

A star for your excellent post, Neo_. It's reassuring to know that there are people on this forum for whom an argument does not always have to be a quarrel.

To address just one point you made: scientists, and therefore science, often do rely on intuition. There are numerous classic stories of the intuitive leaps that carried famous men of science from a series of apparently unrelated facts to a great discovery. In science, however, intuition on its own does not suffice to establish truth; once it has been arrived at by intuition it must be rationally explained and shown by experiment post hoc. This sets truth free, so to speak, by placing it on the firmer footing of evidence.

Your own standpoint is an ancient one with a noble tradition. It arises from the belief that truth is best discerned by reasoning from abstract first principles, regarding physical evidence as suspect because it is derived from a flawed, less-than-ideal world. It goes back at least as far as Socrates. I cleave to the newer empiricist position, but I am certainly not unfamiliar with the elder tradition, nor do I wish to deride those who follow it.

[edit on 16/1/10 by Astyanax]

Thanks Astyanax. I usually bow out of conversations that evolve into an "I am right therefore you must be wrong" interaction. They are fruitless don't serve much purpose. We all have different points of view and if someone honestly believes a particular position to be right, above all other positions then, well.. all the power to them. For them, their position is the truth. But truth changes with perspective. Sometimes two people can hold opposite positions and actually both be right. The view that the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west, for example, is obvious from our daily stand point and is absolutely correct. It does indeed appear to rise in the east and set in the west. But, as we all know, this is an illusion created by the spinning of the Earth on it's axis. The Sun actually moves from the west to the east as it appears to migrate through the signs of the Zodiac in it's annual path. But, as we all know, this too is an illusion caused by the Earth itself moving around the Sun, making the Sun only appear to travel through the signs. But wait a second, from an even higher point of view, the Sun actually does moves from east to west as it appears to migrate backwards through the constellations of the Zodiac due to the procession of the equinoxes, i.e. the Earth wobbling on it's axis once about every 25,000 years. So who's is right? What is the truth?

And yes, I agree, scientist do rely on intuition for immediate flashes of insight. But those flashes, like lightening across a darken valley, lasts only a split second. Suddenly, everything is bright and crystal clear.... and then its gone. Scientist then begin the labourious task of proving what that insight showed them. Eventually, I'm suggesting, we will evolve to such a degree that those flashes will be consistent and constant. We will be "illuminated" and "enlightened". We will have no need or inclination to question or prove by evidence. Our focus will be above the rational mind and we will see truth and simply accept it immediately because of our heightened point of view.

Cheers.

Originally posted by SmokeJaguar67
I have a sinking feeling we go for a long spin wash cycle then get hung up to dry, then we are assigned a newer model and then we get sent back into the meaty game with all the other meaties...

Rinse and repeat until we get “it."

I did shrooms once, and during my trip that's what I went through.

My trip was a loop and I kept seeing signs that signaled "it's right in front of your face, as soon as you see it, the loop ends! LOOK AT IT YOU IDIOT!"

I can't help but think that's what happens when you die. You are put back into the system and you do it over again, and again and again and again. Until, like you said, you get "it."

Now, what that "it" is, is completely unknown to me. At least I would assume I don't get "it" yet, otherwise, wouldn't I be out of the system by now?

Then again, what if there is no "it" and it's just some #ed up cruel joke. Also during my trip I had the experience of life just being a game, that my life was just some game for a couple guys. They created me to watch me and to get a source of entertainment.

Then again, maybe I am just insane.

Edit: To continue on with the "game" theory I was discussing, what if it is just some computer simulated game? Our death is just the creators putting in the expansion pack, we call it "Heaven." There is nothing. We are nothing. There is no life, there is no death. It's merely a game, and what we experience right now is just their game.

We live, we are experiencing "Life Version 1," then we die and experience "Life Version 2.0." Then maybe there is a 3.0 and beyond. Or maybe we are already on 2.0, or 3.0, or even 155.0.

Often times I get afraid when I think of this stuff, as I feel that if I crack the code, my whole reality/existence will break down. Like a broken film, it will sputter and rip apart and in pops the game creator and says "well done" or "haha, joke's on you," It's terrifying to think that at any second the game creators could just shut the game down, but giving us time to realize that everything was a lie, a joke. Could you imagine what would go through your mind in those few seconds where you find out your entire existence, everything you have ever known, was just some cruel, cruel joke?

But then what happens after that?

[edit on 17-1-2010 by Double Eights]

Check out this recent Skeptico podcast where doctors are interviewed about the NDE clinical death status. This is the latest research addressing whether a person is dead or not during NDEs.

www.skeptiko.com...

reply to post by Astyanax

reply to post by drew hempel

You mean the work of Penny Sartori?

Not relevant. Dead is dead. If someone can be revived, it means they weren't dead in the first place. Where there's life, there's hallucinations.

Hell is a constant party of unimaginable pleasure.

Heaven is a eternal sermon.

But most likely, if the soul is a real thing it will get reset at the next available point, in a compatible vessel...