After Death

[Leyla Shen]

E wrote:

Actually, he's being quite reasonable; the symptoms aren't enough to justify expensive tests. But there are things he can do that would be reasonable.

Yeah, like go to a doctor.

[Sapius]

Unidian I'm going to borrow a little bit of your philosophy here in regards to Sapius' last response to me...

Sticky bunz! :)

Will look forward to it, grasshopper.

In the meantime, I will practice some bowling with your master :)

[Sapius]

Hi Nat,

I think that the "afterlife" is an incoherent, self-contradictory concept. If we die and find that we're somehow still alive, it stands to reason that we aren't dead at all.

Yes, it would stand to reason that we aren’t dead at all, but the question is, are we alive to begin with? (please keep reading)

For the individual, there is either life or there is death, and death is the only thing that can happen "after" life. But if it is truly death, we aren't there for it. As Epicurus said, "where I am, death is not, and where death is, I am not." One can die, but one cannot "be dead."

It is more than enough to KNOW that one can die, which one knows through logical deduction, hence the meaning of ‘death’ is clear to him, for he defines it. However, what this Epicurus says is quite correct, but not entirely. Because he is speaking from A particular kind of consciousness point of view; he does not seem to know or believe that consciousness can be of different “kinds” or levels. Yes, it would be a true death if and when one looses his conscious identity, but in contrast to that particular identity only. “Consciousness” moves along and changes clothes, just like “energy” does, and whatever the new clothes or form may be, which can be held long enough in and of causal conditions, becomes its “identity”. Things come and go, and the change simply changes the level of consciousness, and hence the level of awareness of a particular thing.

Therefore, there can be no "afterlife." From the dualistic perspective, which is the only one available to thought and logic, there is either life or there is not.

Where is LIFE to begin with my friend? Where does "it" begin or end? Except the concept that relies on what we can experience while in a certain dimension and limit the definition of the word “life” in contrast to what we define as "not-life". Which apparently is necessary if we are to make logical sense of what we experience, which in turn is consistent according to the dimension we are in, and hence "life and death" reamain meaningfullly consistent to the dimension. If one could experience a different dimension, his experiences and logic would work in accordance with that dimension.

Before you jump on “dimensions”, and to keep it simple for now, consider that ants live in a different dimension. And in fact, due to our reasoning capabilities and various other means available to us, we can conceptually "expereince" (or know) their dimension.

As far as our current dimension goes, one doesn’t need to actually experience another dimension; our present power of abstract conceptualization can logically deduce it. What else do you thing physicists’ work with to discover what already is, in a logical manner, without ever actually leaving the planet. And so goes for thinkers who can really think beyond the limitations of concepts, using the same conceptual tool, which forever remains in and of of a form is, to any particular dimension.

Monistically, of course, the question itself is wrongly put. From the perspective of the totality, what is the difference between life and death? Diogenes, among others, held that there is none. Accordingly, he was asked "if there is no difference between life and death, why don't you kill yourself?" He replied, "because there is no difference."

Wow! And grasshopper is going to use this as defense? I have heard this before, but never really said anything about it, because I do understand the point of view DG was talking from, and that is correct, but form that point of view ONLY. Totality that is.

I have seen, traditionally, that when a philosopher is asked something from A POW, he seems to always answer it from B POV, and when asked form B POV… you know what. Which is not exactly wrong in a sense; because he wants the other person to start wondering, start thinking, since he is bound to find it in contradiction to his experience, since he is standing on the island of the other POV. Whereas, one has to necessarily have BOTH POV's in mind, at all times, as in the two faces of the same COIN, but should also know that there is no ONE coin to speak of from the totality POV. It is forever a conscious dance in and of duality, which even removes any applicable meaning of 'forever', in and of totaltiy.

Well, I went a bit off... I think...

So... getting back to the quote...

(Keeping in mind the island on which DG stands on)

I think that quote starts with DG stating that there is no difference between life and death. To which I would say, if I did say anything at all; if there is none, then why talk about THEM. I think he should understand what I mean.

On the other hand, if DG would ever ask me what difference I saw between life and death, (knowing who he is) I would say; which life? what death? What are you talking about? To which, only silence could be an appropriate reply from a person like him, and then, we would sit besides a cool fountain … and have a glass of wine together.

[Unidian]

Well, the tone of that was kind of grandiose...

But yeah, I sometimes use the term "uniduality" to refer to what you seem to be talking about. There is nothing other than complementary opposition (duality), and that is what constitutes the unity. It's said best by the famous symbol:

[Nick]

Leyla,

As usual you are making things far more complicated than they need to be.

Let me put it this way, I know I did not exist before I was born, and it just so happens I did not have a body or a brain capable or recognizing I existed until after I was born. With that said if you think you are going to still be conscious after your brain and body decay to the point where they stop functioning properly, then it's obviously wishful egotistal thinking.

[Sapius]

Nat,

Well, the tone of that was kind of grandiose...

What do you exactly mean?

But yeah, I sometimes use the term "uniduality" to refer to what you seem to be talking about.

May be.

There is nothing other than complementary opposition (duality), and that is what constitutes the unity.

Hmmm… I don’t know. In my opinion, awareness is what constitutes the unity, which is realized through logical reasoning, beyond which there is literally nothing but duality in every which sense.

It's said best by the famous symbol:

Nice. I believe in symbols too, and words are nothing more than just that, which work equally fine. So could you please remove that immensely large yin/yang :) Thanks

[Nordicvs]

Well, I must say, that is the perfect comparison because despite the apparent fact they’d figured that out, they seem to have made a hell of a mess out of it.

I'm not sure what you mean. What other way was it supposed to be?

To think anything more happens is (desperate, ego-driven) wishful thinking and sheer arrogance from a species that thinks it's really, really hot shit.

Well, yes--except to think that consciousness continues on in others (animal, human or vegetable?), right?

Nonetheless, that isn’t the case here. I agree with Carl’s position 100%. This is how it went:

Nick: You know what things were like before you were born? That's what it's gonna be like after your dead.

Carl: You said nothing. Why make a post to say nothing?

Shahrazad: Because death is nothingness.

Carl: Spoken by one who knows not, makes it a subjective opinion.

Nick's original statement says less while implying the same:

You know what things were like before you were born?

No, I do not.

That's what it's gonna be like after your dead.

..?

Maybe this is just a fun thread, but as it's in Genius Forum, let's at least distinguish between fact and simple belief.

How is it, N, that you can presume to know what things were like before you were (physically) born if, according to Nick's argument, everything you know comes after it, including life and death?

It just doesn't make any sense. Nor can it be supported empirically.

[Edit for clarity.]

I don't get why this is so hard to grasp or why it must be so complicated:

Without consciousness there is no awareness; without an organic form, like a brain, to house that consciousness, there is no awareness. Before you were born, before you were conceived, before your parents had wild monkey sex to conceive you, what were you were? Nothing. You did not exist. After you die, rot and decay, your atoms returning to the collective sum of all matter, your energy released back into the biosphere...you cease to exist, your consciousness ends when your brain gets filled with maggots. You'll have the same awareness you did before you existed: none; non-existence to existence to non-existence.

What's hard to understand about that?

Cannot be supported empirically? What's more likely---that over a few billion years of evolution, one ape species pops up and, for some reason, becomes self-aware and conscious of its own mortality?

---Or that this same species is "divine" and somehow is able to transfer its consciousness, self-awareness, beyond the grave...in---what?---ghost form, floating off with invisible smiles to a super happy place? And where do we 'go,' this extra-special species of ours? Heaven? We drift about somewhere, immortal, for what reason exactly, and why is this only applicable to humans? Is it the High IQ club or something? How long have humans "extended" life beyond the grave---how many humans have ever existed on this planet---trillions?---quadrillions?---a centillion? (All mammals are intelligent and conscious, but humans are more specialized due to our unique evolutionary experience.) Are Neanderthals allowed into this Magical Afterlife or is it a homo sapiens only uber-natural golf and country club?

Or is more likely that it's a silly egotistical desire for permanence, immortality, to be "godlike" because we have 15 thousand years of religious idiocy poured into human consciousness?

No, it's the opposite that doesn't support the facts. All evidence and uncommon sense points to: That which we were before existing we shall be again---unless you feel we're something really special, of course, and that's like a little a kid not wanting to go to sleep.

[Jamesh]

I think your advice was most accurate Elizabeth. Thanks for the links. I'm intensely habit prone, so I might need to be bitched at in that motherly way, you know like you are doing to Trevor atm :). Not keen to go near anti-depressants, but sadly I may just need to go down that path, should I somehow become more responsible for my future.

[Leyla Shen]

N complained:

I don't get why this is so hard to grasp or why it must be so complicated:

It isn’t at all.

I understand it perfectly. I don’t call it wise. In fact, it’s most ordinary!

But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will attempt to stimulate your (and Nick’s) abstract minds further when I have the time to put many more words to the idea than I already have.

In the meantime, plug up that right nostril of yours and breathe hard through the left for a while.

No, it's the opposite that doesn't support the facts. All evidence and uncommon sense points to: That which we were before existing we shall be again---unless you feel we're something really special, of course, and that's like a little a kid not wanting to go to sleep.

Oh, so you are a monkey, too, eh?

Neither you nor Nick have a deep enough grasp of ego, I’m afraid. It‘s very, very shallow, in fact--and I’m being generous, here! You are both egoistically gratified by the grand knowledge that you are your body. "You" do not exist.

But, yes, it's marginally better than being a Christian fundy.

[Carl G]

Without consciousness there is no awareness; without an organic form, like a brain, to house that consciousness, there is no awareness. Before you were born, before you were conceived, before your parents had wild monkey sex to conceive you, what were you were? Nothing. You did not exist. After you die, rot and decay, your atoms returning to the collective sum of all matter, your energy released back into the biosphere...you cease to exist, your consciousness ends when your brain gets filled with maggots. You'll have the same awareness you did before you existed: none; non-existence to existence to non-existence.

What's hard to understand about that?

What's hard to understand is why you would post your subjective opinions as though they are fact, Jack.

[Sapius]

.

Caution: long post; and beware - here be monsters.

What I’m about to say next on the topic of ‘after death’ will most assuredly come as a surprise to most, keeping in mind that I have generally restricted myself to speaking from a philosophical point of view, hence that should be in accordance with the most logically thinkable conclusions according to general experiences. I will now say things from my 'experience' point of view, and what "I" make of it, so none have to necessarily take me seriously. However, I will still try to show certain logical sense of what may be considered illogical or goes against empiricism.

To begin with, let me say that we are, as consciously and logically thinking things, merely in the kindergarten as far as understanding consciousness goes, or understand all that has to be understood as far as empiricism goes, or how totality actually works, because of the dimension we logically think that we are necessarily stuck in, tied down in and of ‘physical’ things that produces consciousness.

Even science is coming closer to understanding that when seen from the very fundamental level there may not be ‘physical’ things as we experience them to be, but just waves and particles, and that they too may be interchangeable, depending on the observer, which actually means depending on the type of consciousness. Hence, what physically real thing would a physical observer be, if in reality all is but interchangeable wave and particles, including the "observer"?

Also keep in mind; energy never dies but simply transforms, and can be detected only through the interaction of things.

We already have huge hurdles to cross as far as understating existence goes, philosophically speaking. In a similar manner, it is far more difficult to accept any thing that has not yet entered the scope of our experiences in general. For it takes pointing to point at something, even philosophically speaking, and to understand what the other means, that should necessarily fall within the scope of his logical experiences.

Yes, there is death, but not as we define it to be as in ‘end of life’, as seen “empirically” and can be proven to be so. It is when one looses his sense of identity, and that is not necessarily tied down to a physical world. I have mentioned earlier that I do not believe in the “empirical”, and tried to argue for it by trying to show that even deducing such a difference is a mental activity.

However, I cannot explain my experiences through explanations, so I will question what Nord has written, from my experience POV, and we shall see how things go from there. May be then it will be easier to understand, if not, it does not really matter. All are welcome to question though.

I think this thread may be sent away nether soon after :)

Nord,
(I hope you don’t mind me addressing you so. It is quite difficult for me to remember the exact spelling of your screen name.)

N: Without consciousness there is no awareness; without an organic form, like a brain, to house that consciousness, there is no awareness.

That is not entirely correct. If the brain is but interchangeable wave/particles (I will address it as w/p from now on), then what physical thing houses consciousness?

N: Before you were born, before you were conceived, before your parents had wild monkey sex to conceive you, what were you were? Nothing. You did not exist.

Yes. But that monkey sex was in and of w/p, but we interpret that as ‘parents’, from as an observing consciousness POV.

N: After you die, rot and decay, your atoms returning to the collective sum of all matter, your energy released back into the biosphere...you cease to exist, your consciousness ends when your brain gets filled with maggots. You'll have the same awareness you did before you existed: none; non-existence to existence to non-existence.

In most of the cases it is so, but not necessarily. We don’t exactly know what all energy transforms into. Is there a way to account for the amount of energy that a whole body is made up of? Is there a way to account for the total energy that is released back into the biosphere when a body deteriorates? It seems you know much about science, and I’m not a scientist, so I ask.

N: ---Or that this same species is "divine" and somehow is able to transfer its consciousness, self-awareness, beyond the grave...in---what?---ghost form, floating off with invisible smiles to a super happy place? And where do we 'go,' this extra-special species of ours? Heaven? We drift about somewhere, immortal…

No, it is not “divine”, nor immortal, nor is it necessarily transferred to a particular thing, nor does it ‘go’ to “heaven”. But it is possible that ‘consciousness’, as a different form of energy, can sustain its self by living off the w/p, in and of the biosphere, which need not necessarily be supported by and in and of the form of a “body” as we recognize it now; a "body" or a "brain” which itself is none other than w/p itself, and our present consciousness is living off it. It is very possible that we cannot detect what other w/p conditions a consciousness may depend on other than a "body" (also a w/p condition) that we know of. And just that has to be scientifically discovered.

There is literally nothing but w/p, and consciousness that lives off it. There is literally no empty space, absolutely. What we consider as empty outer space, or that we don’t know what time and space is expanding into, is actually all filled to the brim to a lesser or higher degree, in accordance to an observing consciousness. Where "observing" need not necessarily be as in “seeing”, but an interactively-affecting awareness.

N: for what reason exactly, and why is this only applicable to humans? Is it the High IQ club or something? How long have humans "extended" life beyond the grave---how many humans have ever existed on this planet---trillions?---quadrillions?---a centillion? (All mammals are intelligent and conscious, but humans are more specialized due to our unique evolutionary experience.) Are Neanderthals allowed into this Magical Afterlife or is it a homo sapiens only uber-natural golf and country club?

Yes. Human consciousness is an elite club for the simple reason that it can logically reason, against all others that you mention, and realize things beyond mere words, for it’s the meaning that really counts.

N: Or is more likely that it's a silly egotistical desire for permanence, immortality, to be "godlike" because we have 15 thousand years of religious idiocy poured into human consciousness?

One of the main reasons that this idiocy came about is because of experiences that couldn’t be understood logically, because of not having made enough scientific discoveries then, which gave rise to fear of the unknown, and the labeling of things like ‘ghost’, spirits and hence soul. People did not understand that that too is absolutely natural; nothing “super-natural” about it. They just did not have enough scientific information to interpret their strange and rare experiences logically. The thought of super-natural, and the capability (gullibility) of accepting seemingly logical inconsistencies, gives rise to imaginative things, and the need that a human consciousness feels that 'I must have all the answers RIGHT NOW'; in whichever way that is, and does not see things logically all the way through because that satisfies his false-ego in believing it so. It favors his deep seated desire to be happy and comfee.

Any reasonably intelligent person that ever lived would have always believed that he has the correct answers. But they actually were, and still are, simply interpretations of experiences accordance to existing knowledge, and the limit of experiences itself. Take for example, (in its own time depending on experiential knowledge then), the flat earth theory, or that it is impossible to go to the moon, or that it is impossible to travel at that speed of light, or say a 100 or a million times the speed of light. Do you think the latter is possible?

Yes, it is a desire, a very strong emotion, but not necessarily a silly egotistical one, but one that arises as a natural consequence of the Self, the real ego; a desire to KNOW Truth, which is based in and of very strong emotions, otherwise logically speaking, there is no logical reason as to why they should arise. At least we don't fully know for now.

On the other hand, since there are none that do not have emotions, relatively stronger or otherwise, that makes it absolutely possible for them to experience what we call paranormal experiences, which are various in kind, for the kind of experience is dependant on what kind of thoughts one is driven to, and what his over all beliefs are.

Yet on the other hand, if one experiences a paranormal experience out of the blue, or because of some physical trauma, that person will necessarily interpret his experiences according to his whole belief system, or IF he is inclined to NOT believe in a belief, and has strong emotional drive to discover logical truth of a certain experience, he will reject belief and keep looking for logical answers to his experiences. Until he is relatively satisfied according to what logically lies within reason, but yet may not have all the answers, because his "paranormal" experiences may not be all that there is that can be experienced, hence expanding his logical understandings according to expereince and reasoning thereof.

The more I know, I know how little I know, for every time that I thought I knew, there was always some more to know.

You know what, it is really very difficult to explain such things to someone who had never experiences such things at all, because currently it lies outside of his experiences, but a very few could relate to a lesser or a greater degree. Mind you, I am fully aware that there are those who’s false-ego drives them to jump at the opportunity to identify themselves as having some paranormal experience, and fell “superior”, but it is actually no big deal. And there are various levels of such experiences, some real, some imagined due to false-ego that generally runs at full capacity. Hence, it is necessary that one transcends his false-ego, and fully realizes a true Self, to keep his head in place. Other wise, it is a great false-ego trip.

N: No, it's the opposite that doesn't support the facts. All evidence and uncommon sense points to: That which we were before existing we shall be again---unless you feel we're something really special, of course, and that's like a little a kid not wanting to go to sleep.

We are not what we were before for we were not, but we shall definitely not be the same what we are, be it physically, or consciously. For consciously we could be or not be after “we” are, and there are logical reasons for such a thing to happen; and when it does happen, that too is not immortally forever. That too dissipates at one point or another.

I have tried to keep this as coherent as possible, but I know for sure that there will be gaps that need to be questioned. “I” kind of have it all worked out in my head; the understanding of my experiences as a whole, and that is really connected to so many, many things that it cannot be explained at one go; so there will necessarily be logical gaps as seen by others.

However, take it as merely a discussion, And please pardon any unintentional mistakes.

(Grammatical corrections)

[brokenhead]

I find it foolish to believe that we all should live our lives in the visions of others, such as Christianity and the beliefs based upon Jesus (no intent to center out Christians); to achieve what some will believe as, "enlightenment." All so that in the afterlife we can live perpetually among beings supposedly, beyond our comprehension.

Why is it foolish to believe in the immortality of one's soul? Count me in.

[Nordicvs]

It isn’t at all.

I understand it perfectly. I don’t call it wise. In fact, it’s most ordinary!

Standing on one's head wearing a tu-tu made of sandpaper while gargling puréed asparagus is not ordinary---nor is it wise.

But I'll bet you'll rationalize that it is; I guess some people argue just to argue.

But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will attempt to stimulate your (and Nick’s) abstract minds further when I have the time to put many more words to the idea than I already have.

In the meantime, plug up that right nostril of yours and breathe hard through the left for a while.

Alrighty. Lead the way, O Grand Master; I'll follow along with the herd, like a mindless drone wanting new programming, desperate to belong to something, to stop feeling inferior and start feeling superior...

(Not.)

Oh, so you are a monkey, too, eh?

Yes---we are all monkeys. You, me, everyone in this forum, every human ape on this planet. But you feel free to delude yourself that you're so much more, "intelligent" and sophistocated and "evolved," that you're part of some grand cosmic scheme...whatever helps stop those tears at night, whatever gives you comfort, sweetie =)

Neither you nor Nick have a deep enough grasp of ego, I’m afraid.

Oh, I know you're afraid; each of your posts ooze fear---all tangled up in your voracious ego.

It‘s very, very shallow, in fact--and I’m being generous, here! You are both egoistically gratified by the grand knowledge that you are your body.

Idiotic. How the flying fuck can my ego be gratified by realizing the fact that I'm a blob of flesh like everyone everyone else, an insignificant cell in a bloated human organism, meaningless, with a consciousness that amounts to nothing more than a meteor burning up in the atmosphere? (What you call "depth" I call delusion, self-deception.)

Makes no sense whatsoever.

The bizarro reasoning around here is so cute, though...

"You" do not exist.

Depends how you define "you" and "do not" and "exist."

But, yes, that sounds very clever and haughty; think of that all by yourself, did you?

But, yes, it's marginally better than being a Christian fundy.

Funny, that's what I thought you were...

What's hard to understand is why you would post your subjective opinions as though they are fact, Jack.

Well, I'd never expect more from sheep than baaaah.

[Unidian]

Powerful reply there, Nordic. I don't know that the nihilistic tone of it is entirely warranted, but I think it got the job done as far as shutting down the weird interpretations that were being projected onto your statements.

[Leyla Shen]

You reckon? I don't think he has any more power than your average bitch on heat.

Kind of dull, really.

[Nordicvs]

Sapius, monsters are cool; I always smile at them and invite them in for a game of chess.

Also keep in mind; energy never dies but simply transforms, and can be detected only through the interaction of things.

If energy never dies, then why is the "expanding universe" slowing down...?

Nord,
(I hope you don’t mind me addressing you so. It is quite difficult for me to remember the exact spelling of your screen name.)

Nord is fine.

That is not entirely correct. If the brain is but interchangeable wave/particles (I will address it as w/p from now on), then what physical thing houses consciousness?

---The physical thing that makes it possible for such wave patterns out of which consciousness occurs. Plenty of things have radioactivity, magnetic fields, particles, forces of attraction and repulsion, wave lengths, yadda yadda---that doesn't make them conscious, because they don't have a brain.

For eight hours of every single day our consciousness changes dramatically---four of those eight hours is spent dreaming, thoughts and memories and "inner stimulus" bouncing around, creating an alternative reality that, for some necessary reason we cannot comprehend, keeps conscious beings (dogs, cats, birds, humans) sane and mentally balanced. Like a phrenic reset button for sanity.

The other four hours is devoid of consciousness. Blackness---it's the unknown, it's nothingness, it's why little kids are scared to go to bed, scared of the dark. It's a little taste of death we experience each and every night (sleeping without dreaming, without consciousness).

When you hack off someone's foot, his consciousness is there still; when you bash him about the head, putting him in a coma, his consciousness is often gone or radicially altered---why? Because his brain is damaged and that's where it comes from. 1+2=3 ...but I'm not about to attempt to prevent those people from feeling they must make it more complex than that, in some vain pursuit for meaning. Go wild, all.

Yes. But that monkey sex was in and of w/p, but we interpret that as ‘parents’, from as an observing consciousness POV.

I'm not certain what that statement is supposed to prove---that before we have a physical structure capable of supporting consciousness there is in fact consciousness...? Does a thought "exist" before it's thought?

(Are you religious? I'm not judging, just trying to get a feel for how pointless this discussion will ultimately be...)

If you can provide evidence that a pebble of Uranium is conscious, I'll agree with you.

In most of the cases it is so, but not necessarily. We don’t exactly know what all energy transforms into. Is there a way to account for the amount of energy that a whole body is made up of? Is there a way to account for the total energy that is released back into the biosphere when a body deteriorates? It seems you know much about science, and I’m not a scientist, so I ask.

No, we don't know stuff like that. We don't know either how that works when a grid of forest and all life in it is eradicated---where all that energy goes---but we're fairly certain that trees and snails are not conscious, so we don't theorize as to where their "spirit" goes, or if it goes anywhere at all. Our notions of "spirit" or post-death energy are entirely homocentric---which goes back through 15-20 thousand years of religious dogma infecting human consciousness, so I don't buy it; it's flawed and biased = ego steering the will to direct the left brain to rationalize "meaning." Another species of heavenization to quell fears of the unknown, I expect. Back to the ego, where we are always redirected.

No, it is not “divine”, nor immortal, nor is it necessarily transferred to a particular thing, nor does it ‘go’ to “heaven”. But it is possible that ‘consciousness’, as a different form of energy, can sustain its self by living off the w/p, in and of the biosphere, which need not necessarily be supported by and in and of the form of a “body” as we recognize it now; a "body" or a "brain” which itself is none other than w/p itself, and our present consciousness is living off it. It is very possible that we cannot detect what other w/p conditions, other than a "body", a consciousness may live on or by. And just that has to be scientifically discovered.

There is literally nothing but w/p, and consciousness that lives off it. There is literally no empty space, absolutely. What we consider as empty outer space, or that we don’t know what time and space is expanding into, is actually all filled to the brim to a lesser or higher degree, in accordance to an observing consciousness. Where "observing" need not necessarily be as in “seeing”, but an interactively-affecting awareness.

Right---I'm not denying those possibilities; I'm only asking: why is it that this concept is restricted to human beings?

Yes. Human consciousness is an elite club for the simple reason that it can logically reason,

(This stinks of recalibrated religious sentiment, yet again.)

Does that mean that creatures who are self-aware and can detect heat or employ sonar are also in their own "special heavenly club?"

A chameleon can change colours to adapt to its surroundings---this is self-awareness, a different species of consciousness specialized for its needs---and chimps use tools, demonstrating rudimentary logic and problem-solving ability. So, what happens to these critters after death?

against all others that you mention, and realize things beyond mere words, (*) for it’s the meaning that really counts.

(*) Why?

One of the main reasons that this idiocy came about is because of experiences that couldn’t be understood logically, because of not having made enough scientific discoveries then, which gave rise to fear of the unknown, and the labeling of things like ‘ghost’, spirits and hence soul. People did not understand that that too is absolutely natural; nothing “super-natural” about it. They just did not have enough scientific information to interpret their strange and rare experiences logically. The thought of super-natural, and the capability (gullibility) of accepting seemingly logical inconsistencies, gives rise to imaginative things, and the need that a human consciousness feels that 'I must have all the answers RIGHT NOW'; in whichever way that is, and does not see things logically all the way through because that satisfies his false-ego in believing it so. It favors his deep seated desire to be happy and comfee.

(Okay, so you're not religious; you're one of those who've replaced "God" with "Science" or "Logic," it seems. The Inuit understood the basic premise of "survival of the fittest" many thousands of years before it occured to Darwin---all without science. Shaman predicted the last ice without technological devices to conclude that. "Logic" is but one of many mental tools.)

"Soul" or "spirit" emerged as a metaphor for air, movement, the fluidity of life---nomads instinctively knew the intangible value of "keeping moving" probably because, as hunters following game, every time they were forced to stay still (and lean on gathering to keep the tribe going), due to climatic shifts and such, they quickly discovered that their numbers swelled to the point from which Nature couldn't recover; they got fat, lazy, and used up all their resources.

And all of that was completely sensible, "logical," just like domesticating cattle in Anatolia was "logical" compared with chasing after herds; it was "logical" to do what was easiest, and, as a result, an honourable and ecologically sound way of life became the mindless slaughter of animals in pens, "logically" developing into herding cultures which spread out and turned places like Arabia and Northern Africa, "logically," into barren wastelands (see Arabian and Saharran deserts).

Religion, also "logically" arrived at, didn't get invented until humans went from semi-nomadic to fully sedentary---eventually putting a human form on (objectification of) the mysterious of life, concocting a "creator." Who was this creator? Woman crapped out babies from her hole; obviously, "logically," she "created" human life---and "Mother Earth" was born into a divinity, spawning all religions to come. (Even now, despite having microscopes and detailed understandings of human biology, anatomoy, and physiology, knowing that human life begins on a cellular level and that neither males nor females "create" anything separately, we still carry this silly notion of woman-as-life-giver---"logic" or no.)

As hunting culture died out in Eurasia, and ancient wisdom along with it, men "logically" put on dresses and started farming, their boys "logically" sacrificed to fertility goddesses, their rulers "logically" expanding outward and stealing what wasn't theirs and provoking a non-stop war on this globe, ...until millennia past and enough of these eunuchs began to "logically" come up with their own ideas---and "Father Sky" was born, becoming monotheism.

And then an ascetic wandering desert guru, a nomadic fisherman, came along after all that became twisted and decadent and corrupt, and tried to get people back on track, the right track, and his message was "logically" objectified into written words and symbols and theological nonsense, into the state-run religious systems that we all know and love today.

It wasn't the absence of logic that started all this---it was logic itself. It was left-brained dominance or the dominion of the feminine or whatever term you wish to use. Using logic as a crutch is unwise. You can fret and organize and be a control freak if you want, logically stopping to ponder everything, but I'll trust my instincts and keep moving...

The wisdom of such wandering gurus is in what they did, their actions, not what they said or claimed to say or wrote. They showed us the way, an example for life, and yet we sit around with our thumbs up our asses, stroking our egos with the other hand, rationalizing our attachments, and miss the bloody point...again.

Any reasonably intelligent person that ever lived would have always believed that he has the correct answers. But they actually were, and still are, simply interpretations of experiences accordance to existing knowledge, and the limit of experiences itself. Take for example, (in its own time depending on experiential knowledge then), the flat earth theory, or that it is impossible to go to the moon, or that it is impossible to travel at that speed of light, or say a 100 or a million times the speed of light. Do you think the latter is possible?

What is or isn't possible doesn't really interest me; it's trivium---what I do, not think or talk about, is important to me.

Yes, it is a desire, a very strong emotion, but not necessarily a silly egotistical one, but one that arises as a natural consequence of the Self, the real ego; a desire to KNOW Truth, which is based in and of very strong emotions, otherwise logically speaking, there is no logical reason as to why they should arise. At least we don't fully know for now.

No, we know; each one of us knows. Truth is inside all of us---all wisdom and all knowledge and all experiences, the total sum of all that has existed on this planet, is inside us; we're just too mucked up to see it, so we rationalize a search to find it, exactly "a silly egotistical one," which is probably a warped metamorphosis of the masculine---the drive to wander, explore, seek physically---into mental wandering...

We're looking for what we've had all along. It was right here the whole time, but logic got in the way and convinced us that it wasn't...

On the other hand, since there are none that do not have emotions, relatively stronger or otherwise, that makes it absolutely possible for them to experience what we call paranormal experiences, which are various in kind, for the kind of experience is dependant on what kind of thoughts one is driven to, and what his over all beliefs are.

Yet on the other hand, if one experiences a paranormal experience out of the blue, or because of some physical trauma, that person will necessarily interpret his experiences according to his whole belief system, or IF he is inclined to NOT believe in a belief, and has strong emotional drive to discover logical truth of a certain experience, he will reject belief and keep looking for logical answers to his experiences. Until he is relatively satisfied according to what logically lies within reason, but yet may not have all the answers, because his "paranormal" experiences may not be all that there is that can be experienced, hence expanding his logical understandings according to expereince and reasoning thereof.

(*) The more I know, I know how little I know, for every time that I thought I knew, there was always some more to know.

You know what, it is really very difficult to explain such things to someone who had never experiences such things at all, because currently it lies outside of his experiences, but a very few could relate to a lesser or a greater degree. Mind you, I am fully aware that there are those who’s false-ego drives them to jump at the opportunity to identify themselves as having some paranormal experience, and fell “superior”, but it is actually no big deal. And there are various levels of such experiences, some real, some imagined due to false-ego that generally runs at full capacity. Hence, it is necessary that one transcends his false-ego, and fully realizes a true Self, to keep his head in place. Other wise, it is a great false-ego trip.

(*) The more you know, the more you know that you need to know so much less. The irony of knowledge is that it inevitably leads one to the conclusion that, way back in its most simple, basic form, it knew all it ever needed to know (like babies forgetting how to swim as they age); this is when a wiseman starts unlearning.

But it takes experience, time, to arrive at this, and a very open mind; it takes a clarity of perception of oneself and all others as a whole, and immense effort and courage to engage in a constant war with one's own ego---it takes suffering and humility and freedom from delusion, freedom from attachments, freedom from logical and rational structures that insist life is a set of parameters that must be controlled and classified and manipulated. Hence, wandering gurus are rare; it seems that some come close, but they sit still and think more about life than they live life, and probably settle back in addictions because their egos are unattended.

True wisdom is that which is put into action; it is an act, beyond words, beyond an idea or thought or scribblings on paper. It is lived; a function, not an object---it is done.

We are not what we were before for we were not, but we shall definitely not be the same what we are, be it physically, or consciously. For consciously we could be or not be after “we” are, and there are logical reasons for such a thing to happen; and when it does happen, that too is not immortally forever. That too dissipates at one point or another.

I have tried to keep this as coherent as possible, but I know for sure that there will be gaps that need to be questioned. “I” kind of have it all worked out in my head; the understanding of my experiences as a whole, and that is really connected to so many, many things that it cannot be explained at one go; so there will necessarily be logical gaps as seen by others.

However, take it as merely a discussion, And please pardon any unintentional mistakes.

Sure. I know what you're getting at---it just seems too confined, to me, restricted and crowded...you do, most do. Like a massive stagnant puddle, with so many things poured into it...it's cloudy, grimy, muddy, swirls of slime and lumps of debris afloat; the truth is in there but choked with "too much." Complex and growing weird things. Poisoned. Longing for the slender, clear, crisp stream it used to be...

[Nick]

You are both egoistically gratified by the grand knowledge that you are your body.

Now that's just about the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time, and I really mean that.

"You" do not exist.

If you mean you or I don't exist inherently then yes. Still doesn't negate the fact that my consciousness will almost certainly end at the death of my body and brain.

Technically my consciousness is always dying and being re-born each and every moment, so I'm always experiencing an "after life". It's just more significant when my brain stops functioning because it causes my consciousness to change in a way where it can no longer maintain it's continuous flow of identity and awareness.

Besides, if our consciousness does somehow continue after our body and brain stop functioning why do we all of a sudden need to call it "after" life, instead of just plain old life. We would still have the same continuous consciousness in order for it to mean anything. Like I said before, it's totally redundant.

[Leyla Shen]

The bitch wrote:

Without consciousness there is no awareness; without an organic form, like a brain, to house that consciousness, there is no awareness. Before you were born, before you were conceived, before your parents had wild monkey sex to conceive you, what were you were? Nothing. You did not exist.

I didn’t exist until much after that, I reckon, since I do not identify self with the brain. If I could say that I was aware of my physical birth at that time*, then I could agree that I came into existence with it.

I will probably cease to exist some time before my brain does, too.

It is so clear that you identify self with the brain, and that you are emotionally attached to the idea. Of course, that emotional attachment doesn’t come from any fault in your thinking, does it? It’s strictly there because of everyone else’s stupidity that requires reckoning with in order to force it to fall into line with you. To hell with philosophy, science has all the hypothetical and theoretical answers for self.

Fundy.

Course, I can easily consider you as a brain encased in a skull getting around on at least one leg, but that does not account for the self which, at best, can only be denied by the scientific materialist.

I can only ever infer that there is a unique self connected to that brain of yours (?) on the basis of my own personal experience and inference. It is more than likely that, as you say, I am completely wrong about that as far as that brain over yonder from me is concerned.

If the birth of my brain represented the extent of my own personal consciousness, there could be nothing for me to learn from others. In thought and mind, I would be nothing more than a hybrid replica of my parents’ brains.

At the moment, I am a combination of any number of historical thinkers, engaged in various debates. Much better than living in a house with a monkey, a jilted lover and a woman. Must be torture!

[Edited to add italicised qualifier]

[Leyla Shen]

Fuck, I don't know who the bigger bitch is, man!

Since you don't deserve the distinction intended by naming individuals, I shall not entertain such a notion and you shall remain nameless!

Now that's just about the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time, and I really mean that.

That’s because you are patently dumb and trying to project yourself out of it!

If you mean you or I don't exist inherently then yes. Still doesn't negate the fact that my consciousness will almost certainly end at the death of my body and brain.

That was never my argument. Boy, do you love straw men!

Technically my consciousness is always dying and being re-born each and every moment, so I'm always experiencing an "after life". It's just more significant when my brain stops functioning because it causes my consciousness to change in a way where it can no longer maintain it's continuous flow of identity and awareness.

Then you should have said so in the first place without all my ignorant prompting.

It might also help if you stopped running around emphatically stating the one-liner, "I do not exist!"

Stupid.

[Edit: emphasis]

[Unidian]

I agree with Nordic in regard to the consciousness/brain issue. I feel that anyone focusing on "where the spirit goes" and such need to spend some more time looking into ego psychology and evolutionary biology.

Nobody (myself included) can say "for certain" that some sort of "spirit" does not exist or that it does not go various places or do various things after death. Proving the negative is not possible, as any dolt should know. But evidentially speaking, logically speaking, and reasonably speaking, we have no reason to believe it does anything and every reason to believe it doesn't. Afterlife beliefs or speculations may be very psychologically satisfying, but they are not rational.

Evidence, logic, and reason are not the motivation for the various afterlife beliefs. Ego and the evolutionary survival instinct are. In addition, all this talk of individual "souls" or "spirits" is deeply inconsistent with a competent understanding of Eastern philosophy, for those who care about that sort of thing.

[Leyla Shen]

To the object without an inner life:

Technically my consciousness is always dying and being re-born each and every moment, so I'm always experiencing an "after life". It's just more significant when my brain stops functioning because it causes my consciousness to change in a way where it can no longer maintain it's continuous flow of identity and awareness.

L: Then you should have said so in the first place without all my ignorant prompting.

Now, to explore this a bit further, what is the reasoning behind the idea that your consciousness is always dying and being reborn in each and every moment, but your brain simply has a beginning at birth and an ending at death (from which you extrapolate a universal beginning of consciousness/self-identity and awareness at brain birth and a final cessation of consciousness/self-identity and awareness at brain death)?

Take your time, now. There’s a possible death and rebirth in this for you. Or, if you're lucky, just death.

(In anticipation of the most likely reply from you I say, of course you don't understand--but at least try to give it some thought.)

[Carl G]

Nord,

I called you on your shit and you replied by calling me a sheep. How coherent is that? How bright do you think that makes you look?

You are coming across more and more like a specialist in bombast, with little actual substance behind it. You appear to live totally in a fantasy world controlled by your ego, as evidenced by your continual spoutings of subjective opinions said with the conviction that you are speaking pure truth. I'd say that makes you highly delusional. I suggest you step back a bit and reevaluate, that is, if you're interested in going further in the enlightenment business. In other words, might be a good time to get a grip.

[Carl G]

Nobody (myself included) can say "for certain" that some sort of "spirit" does not exist or that it does not go various places or do various things after death. Proving the negative is not possible, as any dolt should know. But evidentially speaking, logically speaking, and reasonably speaking, we have no reason to believe it does anything and every reason to believe it doesn't. Afterlife beliefs or speculations may be very psychologically satisfying, but they are not rational.

Evidence, logic, and reason can be as comforting (and guiding) as religious beliefs, but the bottom line is, we don't know. Therefore appeal to those things is pointless in an objective sense.

[Unidian]

What is "an objective sense?" You're relying on the language and framework of the things you're attempting to disparage in order to disparage them. That is why most such attempts to undermine the importance of logic and reason fail before they even start - they are non-sequiturs.

If we can't appeal to logic and reason, what can we appeal to? And it won't do to say we should defer to the "don't know" position, because that isn't acceptable for anything else. A brain surgeon doesn't rely on "don't know" when a patient is on the operating table, and yet people immediately want to invoke "we just don't know" whenever a comforting belief or possibility (such as the afterlife) is threatened. It's intellectually dishonest.

No, we ultimately don't know whether there is an "afterlife." But we don't know in the same sense that we don't know anything else. We don't know that there is not a giant buttermilk biscuit at the center of the universe, because we can't prove the negative. But until there is evidence for such a thing, logic and reason (as well as common sense) dictate that belief in it is entirely irrational.

If you want to ignore logic and reason, you have that right. However, you can't possibly say a single coherent thing to defend that choice, since any possible argument you might make will depend on logic and reason for its validity. The only possible intellectually honest reason that can be given for believing in irrational things is "because I want to."

[Carl G]

CG: Evidence, logic, and reason can be as comforting (and guiding) as religious beliefs, but the bottom line is, we don't know. Therefore appeal to those things is pointless in an objective sense.

U: What is "an objective sense?"

Regarding what happens after death, there can be no objective knowledge, it is all subjective opinion.

You're relying on the language and framework of the things you're attempting to disparage in order to disparage them. That is why most such attempts to undermine the importance of logic and reason fail before they even start - they are non-sequiturs.

Nice try at trying to undermine a simple truth with semantic gibberish.

If we can't appeal to logic and reason, what can we appeal to?

Regarding this issue we cannot appeal to anything, that is my point.

And it won't do to say we should defer to the "don't know" position, because that isn't acceptable for anything else.

Nonsense. There are many things we don't know, and it's perfectly reasonable to admit it.

A brain surgeon doesn't rely on "don't know" when a patient is on the operating table, and yet people immediately want to invoke "we just don't know" whenever a comforting belief or possibility (such as the afterlife) is threatened. It's intellectually dishonest.

An emotional -- and invalid for this argument -- reply, why, because fucking brain surgery has nothing to do with it. That's like saying that because I use science to bake a pie, I should be able to tell you how life began on this planet.

No, we ultimately don't know whether there is an "afterlife."

Thank you. That is my point. Period.

But we don't know in the same sense that we don't know anything else. We don't know that there is not a giant buttermilk biscuit at the center of the universe, because we can't prove the negative. But until there is evidence for such a thing, logic and reason (as well as common sense) dictate that belief in it is entirely irrational.

You and others trot out this preposterous argument everytime the subject of the unknown comes up. Why, I have no idea; it makes no sense; it doesn't refute anything, though it sounds like it should.

If you want to ignore logic and reason, you have that right. However, you can't possibly say a single coherent thing to defend that choice, since any possible argument you might make will depend on logic and reason for its validity. The only possible intellectually honest reason that can be given for believing in irrational things is "because I want to."

That's kind of what I've been saying on this thread all along. People have been positing all sorts of personal opinions about death and post death, and I've been saying it's fine to do so, but let's not pretend that we know.