- #1
himanshu121
- 653
- 1
I wonder What happens after Death. Is there any research link on the subject or any theory under pipeline
Check the article http://www.tek2.ezpeer.net/immort.htm [Broken]. The view expressed there is that the pattern of "self" as encoded in the neural network of your brain can be recoded/unfolded into the larger outer network, the social organism (which is computationally much more powerfull intelligent network, a super-brain), as a more durable "Self" pattern. The "Self" is not a magnified replica of "self" but rather the relation of "self" to "Self" is like the relation of the sperm/egg DNA code to the organism that unfolds from it. The article argues that some religions and ancient wisdom do contain a recipe for this recoding.Originally posted by himanshu121
I wonder What happens after Death. Is there any research link on the subject or any theory under pipeline
Originally posted by himanshu121
I wonder What happens after Death. Is there any research link on the subject or any theory under pipeline
Originally posted by spikebrdr
what is enlightenment? i mean i know what it is, and what happens, but what really happens? like nervana is quoted as," being snuffed out like a candle" but what is that? if u dissapear, where do u go? same with enlightenment... i know that certain religions have beliefs in heaven and going to a better place after death, but how do u work to goin to a better place instead of death? sorry to change the subject but i just thought this was a good opportunity to add my two cents...
spirituality.indiatimes.com[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Can't argue with that. But what is the reality in this case?Originally posted by Deeviant
Dreams are beautiful but reality is reality.
Are we supposed to believe this because it's 'science's best answer'? For science this is metaphysics, it has nothing to say on the matter.Science's best answer to this question is that your brain functions cease to exist and you as you know you cease to exist.
Luckily what you believe will not change reality. I can never understand why it's considered 'scientific' to think that our consciousness ceases with our death. It's no more scientific than believing there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.Many people can't accept this, many people envision something great, grand and much bigger then themselves happening to them after death, but these beliefs don't change reality. I myself can't accept this, but I don't have to, time will take its toll eventually.
You'll have trouble finding any scientific research that supports this assertion, there isn't any.Many people would call my view morbid and self-destructive. But this is how the real world works,
Very true. Pulling a blanket over your head and pretending that you know the truth also changes nothing.pulling the blanket over your head and pretending not to know the truth changes nothing.
Whatever makes you think that?I, as I think every one should, use this knowledge give my best shot at live, and to be the very best person I can be, as I believe(with a mound of data backing my belief) that we only get one shot at this. [/B]
Originally posted by Canute
For science this is metaphysics, it has nothing to say on the matter.
You can believe it if you want but I don't like to believe in things without a reason.
Luckily what you believe will not change reality. I can never understand why it's considered 'scientific' to think that our consciousness ceases with our death. It's no more scientific than believing there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.
True. However it does not necesasarily follow that 'I do not think therefore I am not'.Originally posted by Messiah
"Cogito ergo sum". I think, therefore I am.
Ok. But in 'selfless' states of consciousness what is 'you' is not what 'you' normally seem to be.One must exist in order to experience, and the fact that you experience is convincing proof you exist.
Good question. Assuming one does not die in the process then nobody knows.If you could disassemble your body - if you had the power to remain conscious as each of those particles were removed one-by-one and reassembled twenty feet away - at what point would your consciousness experience the change in location?
This may be true. However it is not clear that our individual consciousnesses are in fact entirely discrete entities. Are ocean waves one thing or many?Two individual elements cannot become a single identity any more than they can simultaneously occupy the same space.
I don't think anyone disagrees with that.It is not possible to 'be' more than (or less than) a single being.
That may be true. But things are not always so clear. Think of a Bose-Einstein condensate.Your corpse is billions of individual beings, so the existence you experience must be that of a single Entity hidden within the assemblage of your body.
I don't like the concept of 'soul' much either, the term carries too much baggage. However there is much evidence to suggest that consciousness (at a fundamental level) is not subject to life and death, and so far none against the idea. We can't scientifically prove that it's true, but this is a not much of a reason to assume that it isn't.This isn't rocket science. It has nothing to do with religion. It is simple logic and elementary deduction. You don't have a soul, you are a soul. And while you are alive, you have a body. When you die, it will fall off (which can be VERY embarrassing as well as downright inconvenient). [/B]
Originally posted by Canute
. . . it does not necesasarily follow that 'I do not think therefore I am not'.
No...I do know. About a year ago, I actually DID this. One night I consumed two quarts of Margaritas. The next morning I actually HAD TO disassemble myself to make it to the bathroom.Good question. Assuming one does not die in the process then nobody knows.
Consciousness is a condition - a state of being. Only a being can have a 'state of' being. You do not have to be conscious to 'exist', but you DO have to exist to be conscious.However it is not clear that our individual consciousnesses are in fact entirely discrete entities. Are ocean waves one thing or many?
If atoms are not, indeed, the ultimate elemental particles, then YES, they could coalesce. But the true entities - elemental particles - from which they were constructed would still be separate entities.That may be true. But things are not always so clear. Think of a Bose-Einstein condensate.
Yeah - 'soul' has a highly religious connotation. Unless you believe that existence is the result of a process - cause and effect - it is difficult to countenance a 'creator'.I don't like the concept of 'soul' much either, the term carries too much baggage. However there is much evidence to suggest that consciousness (at a fundamental level) is not subject to life and death, and so far none against the idea. We can't scientifically prove that it's true, but this is a not much of a reason to assume that it isn't.
True. But the question is what sort of state are you in when you aren't thinking at all? This is neother thinking you are or thinking you aren't. It's a borderline case that hasn't yet been proved either to exist or not exist.Originally posted by Messiah
If you think you AREN'T, then you probably AIN'T
I'll go along with that.Consciousness is a condition - a state of being. Only a being can have a 'state of' being. [/i]
Try proving it. You'll be surprised.You do not have to be conscious to 'exist',
Try proving that as well if you want an even bigger surprise.but you DO have to exist to be conscious.
By a 'non-dual' view, in which, roughly speaking, consciousness is reality, those elements are not actually elemental. They are epiphenomenal. It is science that defines them as discrete and elemental. In reality they are the infintite aspects of one undifferentitated thing that really is fundamental.If atoms are not, indeed, the ultimate elemental particles, then YES, they could coalesce. But the true entities - elemental particles - from which they were constructed would still be separate entities.
I don't quite follow that. But whether or not you believe in cause and effect you can choose whether or not to countenance a creator. All the permutations have their supporters. I go for cause and effect with no creator myself. How about you?Yeah - 'soul' has a highly religious connotation. Unless you believe that existence is the result of a process - cause and effect - it is difficult to countenance a 'creator'. [/B]
Originally posted by Canute
True. But the question is what sort of state are you in when you aren't thinking at all?
Thinking is a process - something you DO, not something you ARE.This is neither thinking you are or thinking you aren't. It's a borderline case that hasn't yet been proved either to exist or not exist.
Done. I have been unconscious. I still existed.Try proving it. You'll be surprised.
Done. Consciousness is a state of being. You cannot have a state of being without being . . . unless you live in Texas, where the state is consumate confusionTry proving that as well if you want an even bigger surprise.
I was three hours short of a degree in physics (30 years ago) when I decided that too much of it was poorly conceived conjecture. I ultimately degreed in bean counting (math) - which is actually just a language, a systematic shorthand for logic. MANY things cannot be proven empirically but must be derived from logic alone.By a 'non-dual' view, in which, roughly speaking, consciousness is reality, those elements are not actually elemental. They are epiphenomenal. It is science that defines them as discrete and elemental.
Actually I would agree that all entities are FINITE aspects of one infinitely differentiated thing - the UniverseIn reality they are the infintite aspects of one undifferentitated thing that really is fundamental.
?I'm not saying that anyone can prove that this is true. But you certainly cannot prove that it isn't. The question of whether consciousness is or is not more fundamental than matter is the biggest unanswered one we've got. It's the most important thing we don't know. It appears to be either an undecidable question or the wrong one.
The Universe was never created - it is eternal. Cause and effect are a function of existence - not visa versa. The principle behind the phenomenon of existence is simply the balance of nature - a reciprocal balance.I don't quite follow that. But whether or not you believe in cause and effect you can choose whether or not to countenance a creator. All the permutations have their supporters. I go for cause and effect with no creator myself. How about you?
Originally posted by Canute
Messiah
You're stating your opinions as if they were facts.
Actually noise, static and bad internet connections might make discussion difficult. Refusal to concede a point in which a flaw of logic has been proven might make discussion difficult. But iterating a conclusion should only add to the points which might be discussed - in my OPINION it stimulates cussin' and discussin'This makes a discussion difficult.
APPLAUSE ! ! !Originally posted by elwestrand
I agree with Canute. There is no scientific principle that asserts that consciousness is a result of the biochemical reations in the physical brain. If there is, what is it? Tell me, please. This is a POSTULATE, not an AXIOM, although many people consider it an axiom because they have limited perceptions. Science asserts that consciousness is an epiphenomenon-- it has no explanation of it in truth.
Am, the physical brain is not the cause of consciousness, just as a riverbed is not the cause of water. Physical brain is an insturment for consciouness to express itself through the physical body. I have no faith in this, I have experienced the reality of it.
Not necessarily. Meditative experiences suggest that it isn't that simple.Originally posted by Messiah
UNconscious
AgreedThinking is a process - something you DO, not something you ARE.
Unconscious doesn't count, since it's defined as not-conscious. The question is what is rather what is consciousness in the absence of thoughts. If it ceases to exist you're right. If not then you're not.Done. I have been unconscious. I still existed.
Lol. This is subtle point though. It concerns the precise meaning of 'exist'. In many world-views ultimate reality neither exists not not-exists in a scientific sense.Done. Consciousness is a state of being. You cannot have a state of being without being . . . unless you live in Texas, where the state is consumate confusion
The universe is certainyl differentiated. But what underlies it may not be.I was three hours short of a degree in physics (30 years ago) when I decided that too much of it was poorly conceived conjecture. I ultimately degreed in bean counting (math) - which is actually just a language, a systematic shorthand for logic. MANY things cannot be proven empirically but must be derived from logic alone.
Actually I would agree that all entities are FINITE aspects of one infinitely differentiated thing - the Universe
Like I say, try proving it. Idealism is unfalsifiable in priciple, and a very popular doctrine to this day, even among scientists.Matter . . . space . . . both are forms of existence. Consciousness is a condition, a state of existence. One is derived from the other. It is not difficult to determine which is more fundamental.
But assuming it is eternal does not not mean we can assume that it ahas no cause or substrate.The Universe was never created - it is eternal.
Originally posted by Deeviant
Why does taking a very physical drug effect your consciousness if physical matter had nothing to do with your consciousness.
While here's a link regarding the http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/e/eleusinian_mysteries.html ...Welcome to my Sacred Circle, I am Iacchus
Iacchus is that boisterous shout who heralds the new World (age of "Man"). One of the main goals of Jungian psychology in its quest for Self knowledge, is the Knowledge of the myth of Self that is guiding ones Soul. Iacchus is the myth of Self that guides my Soul, so I call my Self, Iacchus. Iacchus in English is Jack, my given Christian name. In researching the myth of Iacchus I have developed a recreation of his Myth in cooperation with my Collective Unconsciousness and its Self.
So Friends, I invite you to sit awhile and hear a tale of Iacchus. If you thirst, here is a Sacred Cup filled with water from the Well of the Phoenix. May you Never Thirst!
Please elucidate your meaning of dimension. In the Universe there are three axes - X,Y,Z. The infinite array of polar coordinates - stretching to infinity - which can be derived from these are all dimensions.Originally posted by elwestrand
It is because the brain facilitates consciousness and like As was said, chemical stimulations in the brain will affect consciouness just as consciousness will affect chemicals in the brain. It is like the difference between pushing a cart and pulling the cart. But the casue for mental cognition is not the brain itself-- it can abandon the brain and remain in existence although it cannot remain in this dimension.
Sorry to butt in but if by 'universe' you mean what science means then it is well known (even to science) that there is something that exists beyond it.Originally posted by Messiah
Do you assume something exists outside of the Universe? [/B]