Reincarnation

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:13 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Matt and Kevin,

Matt Gregory wrote:
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:...a thought is an electrical impulse. ...Sometimes, there is less or no electrical activity in the brain...The energy obviously has "gone" somewhere ...(reincarnation is) basically recycled energy.
All of the energy that flows through the body is used to either change the body or it dissipates as heat. It doesn't just flow through the body mysteriously and disappear into the ether.
In this case, it would go through a cycle of being heat. The literal meaning of reincarnation is to be made flesh again, so even if we limit the definition to that, it does not exclude that there are periods between when the energy was one person's thought, when it was heat, (I'm hesitant to write "or powers your monitor" because shortly after I typed that, the green on my monitor blew out - interesting coincidence...)

Okay, let's take it the next step to a human baby, or a calf. At one point, there is no baby or calf, or fetus, and at another moment there is. When it was not there, it didn't have any energy in it - but after it was sufficiently there, there was energy in it. The energy didn't just poof from nowhere.

Matt, as you said one of the things energy can do is change the body. Energy, in the form of the food the mother eats, goes into the development of the fetus and supports any electrical function in the fetus (I won't go so far as to call it "thought" but there are at least reflexes in there). No need to go through the whole chain of where the energy in the food and its predicesors came from - but if you keep asking far enough back, sooner or later science starts getting vague or saying "big bang." Science (the first rule of thermodynamics) will also tell you that energy is neither created nor destroyed, it merely changes form (of course, if energy can not be created, how did it get here?). Anyway, it seems appearant that the energy we have now is a pretty static quantity, and humans are not so special that our energy should somehow be exempt from this recycling process.

This link is a good refresher for the above, and also goes over the second law of thermodynamics, which seems to be the point that neither of you see that I'm getting at.

Kevin Solway wrote:...The power supply has simply been switched off.

Take your computer for example. Now its "thoughts" and memories are composed of electronic charges. But once you flip the switch then all the "thoughts" and memories are no longer supported.

What happens at death is a bit like that. Commonly the blood supply to the brain is cut-off (eg, heart failure), so oxygen is not supplied to the brain, and oxygen is necessary for supplying energy to make brain function possible.
Whether it is your computer or your lamp, it operates as energy flows in one prong stuck in the electrical outlet, and out the other prong back into the outlet, completing the circuit back to the power company. In that way, it is a good analogy as far as us being connected to the Source, but it falls short in what we are referring to is a totally closed system, whereas with the electric company, the energy used by the computer is removed from that system.

With living beings and the Totality, it is an entirely closed system (using technical language, although philosophically the Totallity can be neither open nor closed). Here is where the second law of thermodynamic steps in. The energy still exists, it just exists elsewhere and/or in a different form.

Kevin Solway wrote:
the energy that has been clustered together in a brain may maintain some cohesiveness even after it is released from the body. (bold added during second quotation)
There's no evidence that it is released from the body, any more than the contents of your computer's RAM memory chips
are released once you turn off its power supply.
The laws of thermodynamics do evidence that the energy is either released from or stored in the body. EEGs evidence absence of brain activity in brain-dead individuals. This much is evidenced, but I suspect what you really mean is that the cohesivness is not evidenced.

Because there is not scientifically acceptable proof of cohesivness ever occurring with the energy once used for thought, I used the term "may" rather than making a more definative statement. By using "may" I ask for the leeway given to non-scientifically backed theories rather than the hard evidence of scientific theories or scientific laws.

I do wonder your take on these various "ghost hunters" who use high tech equipment to try to debunk ghost stories, but sometimes find some pretty interesting evidence that they can not explain. here's one.

Kevin Solway wrote:
The stored memories, however, would not transfer. All that would transfer is the active thought.
Thought isn't possible without memory. That is, the essential part of any thought is memory.
A computer may have Read Only Memory, where long term storage is (for the reader, as I know Kevin already knows this) and this memory remains even after the poser is turned off, and Random Access Memory, which is the part being worked on now, and would be lost if a power failure occurred.

For the computer, both are memory, but a computer doesn't actually do any thinking in the way that a human would, and does not experience the electrical surge of emotion that a human does. Any ghost stories with any credibility to them seem to involve highly emotional states on the part of the deceased at the time of their death. Energy does have different properties to it at different times (volts:amps, etc). I don't have all the knowledge about electricity that I would like to have, but i have enough awareness of it to know it can do some things that look pretty bizarre to the less informed observer, and it is a lot more complicated than the average person is aware of.

A new scientific theory regarding the afterlife backs up my claim.

Tomas · Post by **Tomas** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:24 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:A new scientific theory regarding the afterlife backs up my claim.

Yes, back on October 26th, 2004, was a hospice volunteer for my 2nd cousin, Julie. Was watching Sports Center in another patient's room, something told me to go to Julie's room, who'd been in and out of a coma for a few weeks (I was to be her liver donor) if she would've been able to walk for 15 minutes , 5 straight days, well that didn't happen.

Anyways, walked to her room sat down in a chair (about 5:30 PM), a few minutes later her face popped up in front of me, she appeared healthy like we knew her from the earlier years. We talked about this and that, all the while there was this whiter-shade of a cloudy-mist kinda stuff floating about the room, not staring directly but didn't take my eyes of of her face though. An excellent feeling filled my entire self, never had anything like it ever before or after.

Some minutes later, I simply said "Goodbye, Julie" and when I looked back at the bed she was just lying there, not breathing. All I wanted back was that misty-foggy "stuff" as it was the best feeling? I'd ever experienced. I sat there for a few when she breathed a very short "pant" and that was that. Sat there (but not exactly staring) just wanting to experience that "stuff" fill my essence. I slowly stood up realizing I'd have to alert the nurse on duty, decided not to push the bedside nurse alarm and walked over to the bathroom buzzer instead. A couple minutes transpired when a nurses aide appeared told her the deal and asked if she'd get the nurse on duty. She wouldn't come to confirm (at the very least) that Julie wasn't breathing as she had never seen a dead body before. So she got Nathan and he showed up and checked for a pulse etc. , turned around toward me and said "Thanks for being here that she didn't have to die alone."

Right Elizabeth, the key word being "die". What an existence this is :-)

I read that Einstein commentary before about him losing an old friend and Albert's commentary about death.

Thanks for the memory.

Pincho Paxton · Post by **Pincho Paxton** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:14 am

Infinite Universe, parallel Universe, are all a load of nonsense. They are full of bad mathematics, and all include infinite energy models. It's easier to rule out where we don't go when we die, and we don't go to a parallel Universe. And the Beam splitter experiment is also just a misunderstanding of what a Photon is. A photon is many waves at once, but the waves have choices of directions. The electrons catch them, and it is the path that is disturbed. It's confusing, but science just hasn't got the right compositions for photons, and so they are getting some strange results because they think that a photon is a single particle, and it isn't, it's two things, a particle, and the Aether.

Pincho Paxton · Post by **Pincho Paxton** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 3:04 am

dejavu wrote:How is an infinite universe a load of nonsense Pincho? I don't think any energy model need here be considered, nor aid in visualization.

On your no beginning no end thread, in which you propound the not unreasonable, yet flawed notion that the universe is cyclical/oscillating etc. you write:
But anyway, yes I do have another substance outside of the Universe, and it is the Universe membrane. Explaining where it came from is easy as it is just a basic thing with no abilities apart from to stretch.
Chikoka wanted to know as well, ---What outside?! Parts of the universe must behave along the lines you suggest, ie collapses--pops-- expansions, but the universe itself? In what, from what, against what (but itself) does it occur?

While the universe has no ultimate logic, following logic, it can only be self-creating. I'm sure we agree on this at least.

Sorry, I meant infinite parallel Universes, not infinite scale Universe. Infinite scale is fine, as it has an even upward growth of energy. Infinite Universe in number of Universe from forking of time is ridiculous.

GENIUS FORUMS

Reincarnation

Re:

Eternal life

Re: Reincarnation

Re: Reincarnation