GENIUS FORUMS

Logic alone proves that all things are finite, which includes our stream of awareness/consciousness.

Assuming that by death Sher meant the expiration of the body, your statement does not prove that the stream of consciousness cannot outlive the body.

Carl,

Just curious, has this been scientifically established?

Let me put it this way: I'd be very wary of a belief for which there is no evidence at all, and which suits my desires very well. Do I need to explain why?

-

Dan Rowden wrote:

brokenhead wrote:

Shahrazad wrote:Broken,

That idea that "the self persists after death in some form" is wishful thinking on your part.

There is a difference between Faith and "wishful thinking."

There is? Can you explain that difference?

Yes. Everybody engages in wishful thinking now and again. Faith is something you either have or you don't.

I think trying to describe Faith to someone who doesn't have it borders on the futile. It is exasperating even to try. It's not like trying to describe color to the blind; it's more like trying to describe color to someone who has kept his eyes shut from birth.

We're all God's children, whether we open our eyes or not. It's that simple.

Shahrazad wrote:Carl,

Just curious, has this been scientifically established?

Let me put it this way: I'd be very wary of a belief for which there is no evidence at all, and which suits my desires very well. Do I need to explain why?

Possibly. But first let me see if I can sort it out. You have seen no evidence that a person's consciousness can exist beyond the life of the body. And, besides this, you personally wouldn't want to out-live your body.

brokenhead wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:

brokenhead wrote:There is a difference between Faith and "wishful thinking."

There is? Can you explain that difference?

Yes. Everybody engages in wishful thinking now and again. Faith is something you either have or you don't.

I think trying to describe Faith to someone who doesn't have it borders on the futile. It is exasperating even to try. It's not like trying to describe color to the blind; it's more like trying to describe color to someone who has kept his eyes shut from birth.

We're all God's children, whether we open our eyes or not. It's that simple.

When I asked in you could explain the difference, you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble by just answering: no.

Carl G wrote:

Shahrazad wrote:Carl,

Just curious, has this been scientifically established?

Let me put it this way: I'd be very wary of a belief for which there is no evidence at all, and which suits my desires very well. Do I need to explain why?

Possibly. But first let me see if I can sort it out. You have seen no evidence that a person's consciousness can exist beyond the life of the body. And, besides this, you personally wouldn't want to out-live your body.

C'mon Carl, you know what she means by the second statement. Belief that sublimates emotional needs and desires has a nasty habit of screwing up one's reasoning and evidence weighing abilities.

Carl,

Here's some scientific evidence that our stream of consciousness ends at our body's death. Have you ever had surgery where you needed to be anesthetized to the point of unconsciousness? I have, and it's not like falling asleep, or or any other experience I can think of, it's like a piece of your life is missing. There are no dreams, no faint thoughts, there is absolutely nothing going on. Essentially whatever it is in your brain that allows for consciousness to happen is turned off. The same result would happen when your body ceases to pump blood which carries oxygen to it. So I'd say it's everything short of an Absolute statement to say that our stream of consciousness ceases to exist upon our body's death. Anyone who leans towards a position that claims our consciousness exists after our body stops functioning properly is ignorant or thinking wishfully indeed.

Carl,

You have seen no evidence that a person's consciousness can exist beyond the life of the body.

None whatsoever.

And, besides this, you personally wouldn't want to out-live your body.

I have no idea what would lead you to this conclusion.

I do agree with Nick's point on being put on anesthesia. I've been there, and I was completely dead during those hours.

-

Dan Rowden wrote:When I asked in you could explain the difference, you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble by just answering: no.

It wasn't a lot of trouble. Trust me. And you are correct. I should have answered "no." Because implicit in the question "Can you explain..." are the words: "...to me..." No, Dan, I do not think I can explain the difference to you. Faith can touch every part of your life, but it all comes down to your choice. If you believe faith and wishful thinking are one and the same thing, that's not my problem, that's your choice.

Steven,

Steven Coyle wrote:The statement "the self is an illusion" is often used to challenge any erroneous beliefs which arise from a core belief in an ego-centric self.

To me this reduces down to: it's foolish/wrong to be a selfish bastard. To that I'd agree, but it's certainly no proof that the self is an illusion, just that it can be more selfless.

Steven Coyle wrote:By dismantling what the ego-self is, it is often easier to realize the truth that things lack inherent existence. In doing this, one may be able to experience samadhi, which can lead to kensho (enlightenment).

So what exactly does this realisation feel like? Have you had it? Do you experience the world differently or merely cognise it differently?

Steven Coyle wrote:[O]ne's environment and mind will merge, one's subjectivity and objectivity will become one.

I've never experienced anything close to this and if I did, I'd tend to believe that someone had slipped a little something in my drink. I'm not even really sure what it means - in what way can I said to be possessed of "objectivity" anyway? Aren't I by definition a purely subjective consciousness?

Steven Coyle wrote:So, you still have an "I" which experiences, though one with a vastly different understanding (realization).

Right, so the "I" isn't an illusion after all - it exists as a seat of experience. Would you agree then that the phrase, "the self is an illusion" is grossly misrepresentative of what you're actually trying to communicate, and that it simply serves as a red flag to bulls like me?

brokenhead,

brokenhead wrote:What is often confusing when you ponder the self is that there seven selves, one inside another in a sheath-like manner, made of finer and finer stuff as you approach the core.

And there is where I'd like to stop you. Whenever anyone starts to expound on metaphysical/spiritual systems, my first question is always: OK, so how did you come into possession of this knowledge and what convinces you of the authority of that source? Would you be so kind as to answer that question for me please brokenhead? For example, did you receive a visitation from an angel who revealed to you the true nature of your self? Did you read it in a book that you decided (on what basis?) could be trusted? Did you have an out-of-body experience where you observed the different sheaths of your self? Or something else?

Nick Treklis wrote:I have, and it's not like falling asleep, or or any other experience I can think of, it's like a piece of your life is missing. There are no dreams, no faint thoughts, there is absolutely nothing going on. Essentially whatever it is in your brain that allows for consciousness to happen is turned off.

Except that it's been shown that under hypnosis, a post-surgical patient can recount what the surgeons were saying while he was under anesthesia.

brokenhead wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:When I asked in you could explain the difference, you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble by just answering: no.

It wasn't a lot of trouble. Trust me. And you are correct. I should have answered "no." Because implicit in the question "Can you explain..." are the words: "...to me..." No, Dan, I do not think I can explain the difference to you. Faith can touch every part of your life, but it all comes down to your choice. If you believe faith and wishful thinking are one and the same thing, that's not my problem, that's your choice.

No, it's not my choice if I don't know what you mean by "faith". I'm beginning to suspect you don't actually know.

Dan Rowden wrote:No, it's not my choice if I don't know what you mean by "faith". I'm beginning to suspect you don't actually know.

Nice try, Dan. But like I said, if you choose not to have faith, it's not my problem.

Look, I can tell you what wishful thinking is. Wishful thinking is buying a lottery ticket. You do not expect to win, but you know you won't if you don't buy at least one ticket.

I look at the world around me, draw on my own experiences, and form my own intentional decision as to how do I answer the question: is there a God? You get that same choice. I say yes there is. You haven't come right out in this thread and said "that idea is absurd," but you imply it. So my guess is that you are saying no, there isn't. I call my decision an act of Faith, because I cannot prove what I believe. I believe many things I cannot prove, such as the world will be around tomorrow.

brokenhead wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:I have, and it's not like falling asleep, or or any other experience I can think of, it's like a piece of your life is missing. There are no dreams, no faint thoughts, there is absolutely nothing going on. Essentially whatever it is in your brain that allows for consciousness to happen is turned off.

Except that it's been shown that under hypnosis, a post-surgical patient can recount what the surgeons were saying while he was under anesthesia.

Proof?

brokenhead wrote:If you believe faith and wishful thinking are one and the same thing, that's not my problem, that's your choice.

"Faith" is believing things without sufficient objective evidence. (You may have subjective evidence that, by its nature, can not be shared.)

"Wishful thinking" is believing things to be true because you really want them to be true.

So they are closely related, but not exactly the same. For instance, you could have faith in the vindictive God of the Old Testament (Jehovah), even though no rational person would want to live in such a universe.

I look at the world around me, draw on my own experiences, and form my own intentional decision as to how do I answer the question: is there a God? You get that same choice. I say yes there is.

The question "Is there a God?" is not meaningful until the term "God" is defined. What properties would you expect a "god" to have? How would the universe be observably different if it had one, versus without one?

You haven't come right out in this thread and said "that idea is absurd," but you imply it.

The idea that you can say "God exists" (or "God does not exist") without knowing exactly what you mean by God, is absurd. Essentially it means, "I believe in something, but I don't know what." (And this is a position many people actually find themselves in.)

If you can't articulate exactly what it is you believe in, the chances are that your belief is not really very well defined. It's really more of a feeling than a belief. Or rather the belief exists to explain the feeling.

Nick Treklis wrote:

brokenhead wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:I have, and it's not like falling asleep, or or any other experience I can think of, it's like a piece of your life is missing. There are no dreams, no faint thoughts, there is absolutely nothing going on. Essentially whatever it is in your brain that allows for consciousness to happen is turned off.

Except that it's been shown that under hypnosis, a post-surgical patient can recount what the surgeons were saying while he was under anesthesia.

Proof?

Besides, that doesn't refute the point I made.

DHodges wrote:If you can't articulate exactly what it is you believe in, the chances are that your belief is not really very well defined. It's really more of a feeling than a belief. Or rather the belief exists to explain the feeling.

That doesn't follow logically. I have been trying in these forums to articulate my beliefs. In fact, I have tried to point to where what I believe - or very close to it - is articulated far better than I ever could do it. You can say my beliefs are not well-defined, but that just indicates that you are patently ignorant of the variety of religious experience.

You are one of these intellectually lazy people that need concepts handed to them on a silver platter. "If you can't elucidate to my satisfaction, then you really must not know what you are talking about." That about sums up what your last post says to me.

There are a variety of religious experiences. You apparently have not had one. If you had, you would understand how personal such an experience is. You lump them all together and to you they all sound like Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye. That is what I mean by lazy. If you were really curious, you would read voraciously on the topic, as there is no dearth of people more articulate than I who have written about their experiences and their knowledge. If you are interested, I would be more than happy to give you a bibliography. I personally have been in the position of needing to read and learn so I can better understand what I have experienced and seen.

I think you are not really interested in the notion of an immortal soul, of a spiritual life. I think you are more interested in demonstrating that you are too intelligent to be squandering attention on something as nebulous as religious ideas.

Religion is not the Church. It is not the tradition of Judaism, the prophecy of Mohammed, the teachings of Melchizadek. It is not the ancient nun wiith gnarled, pasty-white hands who smacked your knuckles with a ruler. It's not the priest in the confessional who smells like whiskey. It's up to you to decide what it is and what it means.

I, for one, like to know what's going on, what really happened for humanity to be as it is, what the future may hold. I do not dismiss people who struggle with the thoughts of mortality.

Again, I am more than willing to tell you where I have seen my own beliefs articulated in a comprehensible way, certainly more comprehensible than I feel I could make it. But if you think I am going to do your work for you, forget it. For me to spend my time telling you of my own experiences and how I have necessarily come to understand them would be like watching a baby crawl across a highway.

Nick Treklis wrote:

brokenhead wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:I have, and it's not like falling asleep, or or any other experience I can think of, it's like a piece of your life is missing. There are no dreams, no faint thoughts, there is absolutely nothing going on. Essentially whatever it is in your brain that allows for consciousness to happen is turned off.

Except that it's been shown that under hypnosis, a post-surgical patient can recount what the surgeons were saying while he was under anesthesia.

Proof?

There's some information on it here.

brokenhead wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:No, it's not my choice if I don't know what you mean by "faith". I'm beginning to suspect you don't actually know.

Nice try, Dan. But like I said, if you choose not to have faith, it's not my problem.

Look, I can tell you what wishful thinking is. Wishful thinking is buying a lottery ticket. You do not expect to win, but you know you won't if you don't buy at least one ticket.

I look at the world around me, draw on my own experiences, and form my own intentional decision as to how do I answer the question: is there a God? You get that same choice. I say yes there is. You haven't come right out in this thread and said "that idea is absurd," but you imply it. So my guess is that you are saying no, there isn't. I call my decision an act of Faith, because I cannot prove what I believe. I believe many things I cannot prove, such as the world will be around tomorrow.

So, are you suggesting that the difference between wishful thinking and faith is the difference between hope and trust?

Nick Treklis wrote:Here's some scientific evidence that our stream of consciousness ends at our body's death...it's like a piece of your life is missing.

"It's like a piece of your life is missing" is scientific evidence? Lol.

There are no dreams, no faint thoughts, there is absolutely nothing going on.

How would you know this if you are under anesthesia? Lol.

Essentially whatever it is in your brain that allows for consciousness to happen is turned off.

You being temporarily out of touch with your brain process is in no way evidence for a cessation of self upon the death of one's body. If anything it speaks for it. Lol.

The same result would happen when your body ceases to pump blood which carries oxygen to it.

Now that is just speculation. C'mon, admit it. Lol.

So I'd say it's everything short of an Absolute statement to say that our stream of consciousness ceases to exist upon our body's death.

Yep, everything short of Absolute, you speak the truth though I think you meant to say the opposite. Lol.

Anyone who leans towards a position that claims our consciousness exists after our body stops functioning properly is ignorant or thinking wishfully indeed.

Leans towards? Why don't you come right out and say what you are really thinking? Lol.

What a funny post!

Shahrazad wrote:Carl,

You have seen no evidence that a person's consciousness can exist beyond the life of the body.

None whatsoever.

But since there are many things for which you have seen no evidence and which are true, your statement that "I'd be very wary of a belief for which there is no evidence at all," is simply a personal statement of belief itself, and not an objective conclusion.

And, besides this, you personally wouldn't want to out-live your body.

I have no idea what would lead you to this conclusion.

You said, "I'd be very wary of a belief for which there is no evidence at all, and which suits my desires very well." Maybe that means you would like to outlive your body?

And, "Do I need to explain why?" Yes, please. Thanks.

I do agree with Nick's point on being put on anesthesia. I've been there, and I was completely dead during those hours.

How do you know you were "completely dead" and not merely disconnected from your normal state of perception, with your consciousness functioning on other levels? I mean, obviously you were still alive!

Do you say you are dead when you sleep at night? Do you suppose there is no mental activity within those in a coma? If you were to grow faint from the heat and pass out, would you consider yourself dead? What if you went to a hypnotist, spoke while under hypnosis, and then returned remembering nothing. Were you dead while speaking?

Who's to say a state only counts as consciousness if we are self-aware of it? If that were the definition, then many people much of the time could be counted as dead -- while still in their living bodies, walking the streets!

Carl,

But since there are many things for which you have seen no evidence and which are true, your statement that "I'd be very wary of a belief for which there is no evidence at all," is simply a personal statement of belief itself, and not an objective conclusion.

The latter part of my statement needs to be there for the statement to be true.

You said, "I'd be very wary of a belief for which there is no evidence at all, and which suits my desires very well." Maybe that means you would like to outlive your body?

Yes, I believe I would. I'm not yet comfortable with ending my consciousness.

And, "Do I need to explain why?" Yes, please. Thanks.

Dan's post sums it up real well. I posted it here:

C'mon Carl, you know what she means by the second statement. Belief that sublimates emotional needs and desires has a nasty habit of screwing up one's reasoning and evidence weighing abilities.

How do you know you were "completely dead" and not merely disconnected from your normal state of perception, with your consciousness functioning on other levels? I mean, obviously you were still alive!

My own consciousness is about the only thing I can really be sure of. And I'm sure that I didn't experience consciousness while I was put under, because if I had, I'd be conscious of it. You can't be conscious and unconscious all at once.

Do you say you are dead when you sleep at night?

Not at all. I am conscious when I sleep, my mind has thoughts and perceptions. I experience pleasure and pain. I am just not awake. I even have a feeling of how much time has passed, and use that to know when I should wake up. I never use an alarm clock.

Do you suppose there is no mental activity within those in a coma?

I've never been there, but if I had to guess, I'd say no.

If you were to grow faint from the heat and pass out, would you consider yourself dead? What if you went to a hypnotist, spoke while under hypnosis, and then returned remembering nothing. Were you dead while speaking?

In both of those cases, my brain would have some evidence that time has elapsed. Under anesthesia, it was as if that time never happened.

.

Carl G wrote: "It's like a piece of your life is missing" is scientific evidence? Lol.

No, the experience itself is.

Carl G wrote:How would you know this if you are under anesthesia? Lol.

Are you serious? lol?

Carl G wrote:You being temporarily out of touch with your brain process is in no way evidence for a cessation of self upon the death of one's body. If anything it speaks for it. Lol.

Actually it is, in both cases something is happening that prevents consciousness from arising and they both have the same result, which is unconsciousness. You ever been put in a choke hold?

Carl G wrote:Now that is just speculation. C'mon, admit it. Lol.

Not at all, it's based entirely in fact. Don't believe me? Tie a boulder to your foot and jump in the deep end of a pool. See how long you remain conscious. I'll count, 1...2...3...

Carl G wrote:Leans towards? Why don't you come right out and say what you are really thinking? Lol.

Wtf?

Laird,

S: The statement "the self is an illusion" is often used to challenge any erroneous beliefs which arise from a core belief in an ego-centric self.

L: To me this reduces down to: it's foolish/wrong to be a selfish bastard. To that I'd agree, but it's certainly no proof that the self is an illusion, just that it can be more selfless.

Your view is an ethical one, where as the context is one of a more spiritual nature - thus your lack of understanding.

An illusion is simply that: a false view of something. "the self is an illusion" is an invitation to further philosophic inquiry (i.e. "What is the self?")

S: By dismantling what the ego-self is, it is often easier to realize the truth that things lack inherent existence. In doing this, one may be able to experience samadhi, which can lead to kensho (enlightenment).

L: So what exactly does this realisation feel like? Have you had it? Do you experience the world differently or merely cognise it differently?

"What does this realization feel like..."

Tranquil light.

Yep.

Can you separate experience and cognition?

S: [O]ne's environment and mind will merge, one's subjectivity and objectivity will become one.

L: I've never experienced anything close to this and if I did, I'd tend to believe that someone had slipped a little something in my drink. I'm not even really sure what it means - in what way can I said to be possessed of "objectivity" anyway? Aren't I by definition a purely subjective consciousness?

Your subjectivity (which is all you are possessed of) becomes objective.

If you're still interested, I'd encourage you to read through any of the spiritual texts on Kevin or David's sites - the wisdom of the past may spark something.

Nick, your choppy quoting leaves me nothing to reference to (without scrolling back further) so there's nothing to comment on.