Thread: After you die.

Originally Posted by Mario92

My argument is this: consciousness is entirely and totally the product of the brain. When you die, or when your brain stops working, to be more precise, the individual you were dies. Left behind is a pile of decomposing matter. You as a conscious entity cease to exist. Your thoughts, memories, passions, desires, are all wiped away from reality and fed to the worms. Life goes on, but you don't. You won't be around for anything else, ever again. You are no more.

Thanks for clarifying, this makes it more specific to what you're actually saying.

Now, you clearly believe in some form of the afterlife. Would you like to supply the evidence for this?

I do believe in the possible afterlife, but I know that I can neither prove or disprove it. Do you think that to ask of such proof is logical in itself? Am I expected to die, reincarnate, grow up into specific yet uncontrollable conditions, and then finally resume and conclude the experiment? How do you expect it to be proven? It could be a better idea to see through the illusion of the sequence of time, because then we can see that life, in essence, is not transitory.

There are many implications and intuitive understandings that affirm the afterlife, although this is more of a result of becoming aware of Karma and the intangibility of consciousness. People with advanced human consciousness tend to recall past life-times and Karma, which can not only be arrived at spontaneously as an indirect result of spiritual practice, but also through hypnosis. Much of this is in the domain of spiritual/psychological experience and not in the domain of provability or predictability.

Would you like to supply the evidence for your claim?

Originally Posted by Mario92

My argument is this: consciousness is entirely and totally the product of the brain. When you die, or when your brain stops working, to be more precise, the individual you were dies. Left behind is a pile of decomposing matter. You as a conscious entity cease to exist. Your thoughts, memories, passions, desires, are all wiped away from reality and fed to the worms. Life goes on, but you don't. You won't be around for anything else, ever again. You are no more.

Now, you clearly believe in some form of the afterlife. Would you like to supply the evidence for this?

That seems to be the obvious course of events. I think one of the more spiritual schools of thought is that consciousness in fact is the nature of the universe (something different than matter), and the brain is simply a vessel for it. Either way though, it seems pretty likely that when the brain dies, that which is the individual also dies. So either way "we" won't be around to make any sense of it.

Consciousness is still a mystery, there's no concrete evidence that it is or isn't limited to the brain yet. Hopefully we'll see some further scientific developments on this soon.

Originally Posted by really

There are many implications and intuitive understandings that affirm the afterlife, although this is more of a result of becoming aware of Karma and the intangibility of consciousness. People with advanced human consciousness tend to recall past life-times and Karma, which can not only be arrived at spontaneously as an indirect result of spiritual practice, but also through hypnosis. Much of this is in the domain of spiritual/psychological experience and not in the domain of provability or predictability.

Would you like to supply the evidence for your claim?

The problem with hypnosis: false memories. And more false memories. The human brain is an amazing thing...if you want to believe something, you can make yourself believe it. This is called delusion. Remembering past lives as a result of hypnosis or even under meditation holds about as much validity as the claim that I consumed three pounds of nails for breakfast today.

Now...you claim that there is validity in spiritual practices, most of which basically exist outside the realm of testability and provability. What you have created is an unfalsifiable claim. Could you be right? Sure. But I highly doubt it. There are simply far too many variables. Any claim that there is something we can't observe or explain accurately creates more variables than necessary. If you can't observe it reliably, why should it have to exist? Why does karma have to exist? It doesn't. It isn't necessary for anything. You can believe it if you like, but I think you're delusional. You're seeing something that isn't there. Now, I do not need to supply evidence for why karma doesn't exist. That's like asking me to supply evidence of why a teakettle is not in the asteroid belt. You are making the positive claim. The burden of proof rests on your shoulders.

Speesh: http://www.mindbodysymposium.com/Hum...s-project.html

All memories are 'false'. Reality is and always will be subjective. Might as well make it the best subjective reality ever.

Originally Posted by really

and memory doesn't really mean anything either

Oh, I think it does. The afterlife is all about living on. When we die, even if we live on in a different physical form, we have died as people.
If you told me I would die and my memories, personality, and everything about me would die except my physical form would be recycled so technically I would become a frilled lizard, it wouldn't be any better than dying.

We are not living on. Our bodies are (technically) living on. Humans want to know that when their body perishes, there is somewhere for us as people to go. Not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Mario92

The problem with hypnosis: false memories. And more false memories. The human brain is an amazing thing...if you want to believe something, you can make yourself believe it. This is called delusion. Remembering past lives as a result of hypnosis or even under meditation holds about as much validity as the claim that I consumed three pounds of nails for breakfast today.

There may be inaccuracies and false memories, but past-life research isn't ordinary hypnosis. The hypnotists don't program you with special, arbitrary memories, but direct you to re-experience unique past happenings in vivid detail. Memory and interpretation seem like a very touchy subject; as if discussing the afterlife wasn't enough.

Also, when I said 'this is more of a result of becoming aware of Karma and the intangibility of consciousness', I did not mean by specific meditation on past-life memories. I meant that it comes about as an indirect consequence of higher spiritual investigation, and not intellectually. Proving or disproving what has actually happened is therefore hard to do in some cases, particularly those that are not controlled and especially those that precede birth.

In addition to this, there's the phenomena of Out-of-Body Experiences. Have you heard of the Monroe Institute? Furthermore have you watched Thomas Campbell's Big Theory of Everything? See this thread for more relevant info on debating consciousness, but especially the first shown post by Xaq (contains Youtube video/series link). It is well worth watching and it is easy to draw links to this topic.

More experiences include those known as Near-death experiences, which are different than OBE's. These experiences reveal that one's consciousness is indeed not a product of the physical body. Again, not provable/disprovable, yet not arbitrary or inconsistent either. All of these experiences no doubt complement each other.

Now...you claim that there is validity in spiritual practices, most of which basically exist outside the realm of testability and provability.

The validity is self-fulfilling and you can even find out for yourself. The proof, as I said, is something that I cannot provide. We're speaking of two different paradigms of confirmation.

A proof here is meaningless because the "afterlife" and "Karma" confirmed in experience and not in linear data. It is like me asking to prove to me that you know that you're alive: Let's say I ask you for proof that you know of life and existence. What can you prove to me? Even the phrase "I think, therefore I am" doesn't cut it because existing precedes thinking. Do note that this is not the same category of experience as whether a person can perceive or conceptualize something, as it does not appear within such normal realms of unreliable human experience.

What you have created is an unfalsifiable claim. Could you be right? Sure. But I highly doubt it. There are simply far too many variables. Any claim that there is something we can't observe or explain accurately creates more variables than necessary. If you can't observe it reliably, why should it have to exist? Why does karma have to exist? It doesn't. It isn't necessary for anything. You can believe it if you like, but I think you're delusional. You're seeing something that isn't there. Now, I do not need to supply evidence for why karma doesn't exist. That's like asking me to supply evidence of why a teakettle is not in the asteroid belt. You are making the positive claim. The burden of proof rests on your shoulders.

There's no burden if you understand what I mean by not requiring proof. All spiritual phenomena are experiential and not concrete or perceivable. The very fact that you exist is a spiritual concern, but you cannot totally explain or prove it to anybody. If somebody says, "Oh you're alive because your heart is beating" - does that fully encompass the knowledge of existence and life, as it is to you? Looking into the afterlife goes in the same direction.

Now I must ask you again. Would you like to supply the evidence for your claim? Or more importantly, why should I believe non-existence is possible? What we're debating here is not so much whether every spirit incarnates again (because that is not set in stone for everyone) but rather, whether your life persists after death in this lifetime. This means, simply that you exist as an entity and have the likelihood to incarnate again or not, and to evolve further beyond this lifetime. Going back to your argument: I would think that if we can see that non-existence is not possible, then the possibility of an after-life, in this sense, is far more promising than you might expect.

Originally Posted by juroara

All memories are 'false'.

Haha good point, although what I think Mario means is that memories are false in the sense that they are completely wrong, having never occurred.

Originally Posted by Loaf

Oh, I think it does. The afterlife is all about living on. When we die, even if we live on in a different physical form, we have died as people.
If you told me I would die and my memories, personality, and everything about me would die except my physical form would be recycled so technically I would become a frilled lizard, it wouldn't be any better than dying.

If these facets are just part of the body, then who's to say what's better than dying or not?

Originally Posted by really

There may be inaccuracies and false memories, but past-life research isn't ordinary hypnosis. The hypnotists don't program you with special, arbitrary memories, but direct you to re-experience unique past happenings in vivid detail. Memory and interpretation seem like a very touchy subject; as if discussing the afterlife wasn't enough.

A psychologist doesn't have to implant arbitrary memories to unwittingly convince people of false ones. If a person goes in with a preconceived notion completely the product of their own mind, and under hypnosis intensify this self-made memory, voila, you have someone convinced of past lives. Repeated sessions lead to greater confidence and more vivid details, all self-developed.

Also, when I said 'this is more of a result of becoming aware of Karma and the intangibility of consciousness', I did not mean by specific meditation on past-life memories. I meant that it comes about as an indirect consequence of higher spiritual investigation, and not intellectually. Proving or disproving what has actually happened is therefore hard to do in some cases, particularly those that are not controlled and especially those that precede birth.

Why is spiritual investigation a good thing? How is it any different from delusion? You can "investigate" all you want, but in the end, you'll end up seeing what you want to see.

In addition to this, there's the phenomena of Out-of-Body Experiences. Have you heard of the Monroe Institute? Furthermore have you watched Thomas Campbell's Big Theory of Everything? See this thread for more relevant info on debating consciousness, but especially the first shown post by Xaq (contains Youtube video/series link). It is well worth watching and it is easy to draw links to this topic.

Out of body experiences...an unexplained phenomena. How is this evidence of the afterlife? Is it supposed to show that consciousness is separate of the body? Because there are other, equally reasonable possibilities with exactly as much evidence to back them up.

More experiences include those known as Near-death experiences, which are different than OBE's. These experiences reveal that one's consciousness is indeed not a product of the physical body. Again, not provable/disprovable, yet not arbitrary or inconsistent either. All of these experiences no doubt complement each other.

NDE's...like the tunnel with the white light at the end? The same one that can be replicated via oxygen deprivation, with the individual nowhere near death? I'd call this more a response of the mind shutting down than the soul leaving the body.

The validity is self-fulfilling and you can even find out for yourself. The proof, as I said, is something that I cannot provide. We're speaking of two different paradigms of confirmation.

A proof here is meaningless because the "afterlife" and "Karma" confirmed in experience and not in linear data. It is like me asking to prove to me that you know that you're alive: Let's say I ask you for proof that you know of life and existence. What can you prove to me? Even the phrase "I think, therefore I am" doesn't cut it because existing precedes thinking. Do note that this is not the same category of experience as whether a person can perceive or conceptualize something, as it does not appear within such normal realms of unreliable human experience.

What you're dealing with is a vague and mysterious world. Here's the thing: people who investigate this stuff on their own obtain different results. Who am I to believe? The guy who says he's been to heaven? The guy who has seen Jesus in an OBE? The man in harmony with the universe? The person who claims to have been a snake in a past life? You can't draw any solid conclusions. You can't say with confidence that karma actually exists. If your personal experiences have led you to believe so, bully for you. I think you're delusional.

There's no burden if you understand what I mean by not requiring proof. All spiritual phenomena are experiential and not concrete or perceivable. The very fact that you exist is a spiritual concern, but you cannot totally explain or prove it to anybody. If somebody says, "Oh you're alive because your heart is beating" - does that fully encompass the knowledge of existence and life, as it is to you? Looking into the afterlife goes in the same direction.

Is it a spiritual concern? Why can't it be a run-of-the-mill physical concern? When I look at myself, I see a series of self-sustaining chemical reactions. Nothing more, nothing less. My thoughts, memories, experiences, all driven by chemical reactions. If you want to find out if I'm alive or not, check to see if all my reactions are performing normally. There are hundreds of ways to test this...heartbeat, EEG, CAT scans, blood pressure, temperature, reflex, and so on. From the results you collect, you can determine within a very reasonable degree of certainty whether or not I'm alive.

Now I must ask you again. Would you like to supply the evidence for your claim? Or more importantly, why should I believe non-existence is possible? What we're debating here is not so much whether every spirit incarnates again (because that is not set in stone for everyone) but rather, whether your life persists after death in this lifetime. This means, simply that you exist as an entity and have the likelihood to incarnate again or not, and to evolve further beyond this lifetime. Going back to your argument: I would think that if we can see that non-existence is not possible, then the possibility of an after-life, in this sense, is far more promising than you might expect.

You're concerning yourself too much with this concept of nonexistence, and are placing variables where they do not belong. Why shouldn't consciousness be the sole product of the human mind? And if it is the sole product of the human mind, of the chemical reactions within the brain, then you don't have to worry about nonexistence. When the reactions stop (in other words, when you physically die or go brain dead), your consciousness basically dies. It stops working. It doesn't go anywhere but the ground. Matter and energy are not being created or destroyed. Your consciousness isn't some precious physical entity that evaporates into nothingness. It is a product of chemical reactions, and when those reactions cease, consciousness ceases, too. Adding spirits or external sources of consciousness only create more problems than necessary. Where do these spirits come from? What happens if there aren't enough to go around? Why are humans so special that we need an entire invisible world of conscious entities to give us consciousness? Why in tens of thousands of years have we been unable to obtain one single solid strand of evidence for the existence of any form of any afterlife?

I don't believe him, he is now probably laughing for everyone who believes him ^^
If it is more religious than scientific, it must be 100% false, i can't doubt about it.
after 2 minutes of no oxygen for the brain, it gets serious damage so he wouldn't even be possible to read, let alone write a book.

As for what happens after when you die, well you are a conscious creation from this universe (there is no other conscious creature or as some people would refer to as a "god" involved in this)
so if you die, you can't be conscious anymore and you simply stop thinking while your body slowly gets "taken back" to the universe

of course i am not a professional in this but i don't see any other (logical) possibilities.

Originally Posted by catzisconfus

I don't believe him, he is now probably laughing for everyone who believes him ^^
If it is more religious than scientific, it must be 100% false, i can't doubt about it.
after 2 minutes of no oxygen for the brain, it gets serious damage so he wouldn't even be possible to read, let alone write a book.

I said oxygen deprivation, not starvation. You can hold your breath until you pass out and won't be any worse for wear because of it.

As for what happens after when you die, well you are a conscious creation from this universe (there is no other conscious creature or as some people would refer to as a "god" involved in this)
so if you die, you can't be conscious anymore and you simply stop thinking while your body slowly gets "taken back" to the universe

of course i am not a professional in this but i don't see any other (logical) possibilities.

Not quite sure what you're saying here. If it's along the lines of "we're products of the universe, and our consciousness is the result of the physical body, and when the physical body stops working, so does consciousness," then I'm inclined to agree.

i was talking about the OP, not about you

Ah. M'kay.

Pattern. People discuss what they cannot and have not done.
Poor people tell you all they could do with someone else's money.

Perhaps the highest form of expressing one's impotence is . . . . Daydreams.

Ass backwards: attempting to be lucid while asleep while demanding to be asleep while awake.
Confusing fantasy for lucidity. I remember that kind of lucid dreaming.

True lucidity is the exercise of function, not its retirement.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Out of body experiences...an unexplained phenomena. How is this evidence of the afterlife? Is it supposed to show that consciousness is separate of the body? Because there are other, equally reasonable possibilities with exactly as much evidence to back them up.

NDE's...like the tunnel with the white light at the end? The same one that can be replicated via oxygen deprivation, with the individual nowhere near death? I'd call this more a response of the mind shutting down than the soul leaving the body.

to be fair, just because you can recreate something one way, doesnt mean there isnt another way for it to happen. Everything else you said I agree with though.

and on obes, I dont believe there is an actually credible theory as to how they all work. But it is one of the more intriguing things about our body to study, besides consciousness itself.

Originally Posted by Mario92

A psychologist doesn't have to implant arbitrary memories to unwittingly convince people of false ones. If a person goes in with a preconceived notion completely the product of their own mind, and under hypnosis intensify this self-made memory, voila, you have someone convinced of past lives. Repeated sessions lead to greater confidence and more vivid details, all self-developed.

I'm not going to be arguing about whether memories are true or not. They're but one example, and like I said - a touchy subject. Take it with a grain of salt for now.

Why is spiritual investigation a good thing? How is it any different from delusion? You can "investigate" all you want, but in the end, you'll end up seeing what you want to see.

I'm also not going to sway this thread into a lecture about meditation because you're so closed minded about it. Perhaps you just see what you want to see.

Out of body experiences...an unexplained phenomena. How is this evidence of the afterlife? Is it supposed to show that consciousness is separate of the body? Because there are other, equally reasonable possibilities with exactly as much evidence to back them up.

Can you actually answer my questions? I wasn't kidding; maybe what I just brought up can actually address and answer your own questions.

NDE's...like the tunnel with the white light at the end? The same one that can be replicated via oxygen deprivation, with the individual nowhere near death? I'd call this more a response of the mind shutting down than the soul leaving the body.

You're already jumping to conclusions. The point is that the experience confirms that death is impossible.

What you're dealing with is a vague and mysterious world. Here's the thing: people who investigate this stuff on their own obtain different results.

If you look into the real-deal spirituality (E.g. see Advaita or the Bhagavad Gita), actually you'd find that they do not present different "results." Hence when I said "...not provable/disprovable, yet not arbitrary or inconsistent either." Karma and the afterlife are not random, uncommon or arbitrary ideas.

Is it a spiritual concern? Why can't it be a run-of-the-mill physical concern? When I look at myself, I see a series of self-sustaining chemical reactions. Nothing more, nothing less. My thoughts, memories, experiences, all driven by chemical reactions. If you want to find out if I'm alive or not, check to see if all my reactions are performing normally. There are hundreds of ways to test this...heartbeat, EEG, CAT scans, blood pressure, temperature, reflex, and so on. From the results you collect, you can determine within a very reasonable degree of certainty whether or not I'm alive.

In essence you're telling me you'd rather just see it your way. I'm not going to try to change your mind, but just consider for a moment that you're missing the bigger picture. You don't actually know these things at heart. Like everybody else, you only really know of existence - that is not a scientific conclusion now is it? It is experiential. You can't say "Oh no but what grounds do I have to believe in that.." etc.

You're concerning yourself too much with this concept of nonexistence, and are placing variables where they do not belong. Why shouldn't consciousness be the sole product of the human mind?

Because non-existence is an invalid abstract concept, in the end. Therefore, if consciousness was a "sole product" of the human mind, it would have to negate the authority of existence by some act of magic. Reality is not an independent existence in consciousness, and if you agree that consciousness is a "sole product" of the mind, you are mistaking the paradigm difference and giving authority to superficial ideas instead of self-evidence.

And if it is the sole product of the human mind, of the chemical reactions within the brain, then you don't have to worry about nonexistence. When the reactions stop (in other words, when you physically die or go brain dead), your consciousness basically dies. It stops working. It doesn't go anywhere but the ground. Matter and energy are not being created or destroyed.

This is contradictory because if matter and energy are conserved, then so is consciousness. If you say we die and cease to exist, then from whence did we come? Did we become alive out of non-existence? I highly doubt that.

Originally Posted by really

I'm not going to be arguing about whether memories are true or not. They're but one example, and like I said - a touchy subject. Take it with a grain of salt for now.

I'm also not going to sway this thread into a lecture about meditation because you're so closed minded about it. Perhaps you just see what you want to see.

Call me close minded all you like, but until I see some valid evidence, I'm not going to sway.

You're already jumping to conclusions. The point is that the experience confirms that death is impossible.

It confirms nothing at all. It shows that people with NDE's have similar experiences. It does not give any accurate sense of what the source of these similar experiences are. It might as well be a physical process for all we know.

If you look into the real-deal spirituality (E.g. see Advaita or the Bhagavad Gita), actually you'd find that they do not present different "results." Hence when I said "...not provable/disprovable, yet not arbitrary or inconsistent either." Karma and the afterlife are not random, uncommon or arbitrary ideas.

They're ideas founded on thousands of years of religion. That doesn't mean they're real. As I've said...I require some form of evidence, especially in regards to the larger and more mysterious questions of the universe. You might call that close-minded, but as long as your arguments can be countered or negated with equally plausible ones, you haven't shown me anything. I'm not saying you absolutely have to be dead wrong, but the odds of you being correct are more implausible than the obvious solution that we as conscious beings die at the end of our lives. You're factoring in hidden and undetectable forces of dubious origin, outside entities as the source of consciousness that we cannot perceive. When people say they have confidence in one of these things, my ass begins to twitch. Now, you could be right. But I really don't think so.

In essence you're telling me you'd rather just see it your way. I'm not going to try to change your mind, but just consider for a moment that you're missing the bigger picture. You don't actually know these things at heart. Like everybody else, you only really know of existence - that is not a scientific conclusion now is it? It is experiential. You can't say "Oh no but what grounds do I have to believe in that.." etc.

Yes, I only know of existence. Of course, I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in anything beyond existence. Now, I could be wrong. I could be a delusional, sophisticated penguin on some frozen outcropping of Antarctica for all I know. But without any evidence to back that claim up, why should I even consider it? Don't you find it funny that, in the thousands of years modern humans have been walking the face of the earth for, we have yet to find one single shred of evidence that supports unwaiveringly the notion of any sort of afterlife?

Because non-existence is an invalid abstract concept, in the end. Therefore, if consciousness was a "sole product" of the human mind, it would have to negate the authority of existence by some act of magic. Reality is not an independent existence in consciousness, and if you agree that consciousness is a "sole product" of the mind, you are mistaking the paradigm difference and giving authority to superficial ideas instead of self-evidence.

We're not talking about non-existence. I'm talking about the chemical reactions sustaining conscious thought ceasing to take place. All the components are still there...until recycled back into the earth, that is, it's just that no motion between particles is taking place. What causes that motion to stop varies from person to person, but generally aging or catastrophic failure causes some physical function necessary for life to shut down, and that chain-reacts itself straight to the brain. Faced without oxygen, blood, or nutrients, it rapidly parishes, unable to sustain the reactions. The reactions cease, and the consciousness that was the product of those reactions also ceases. Consciousness as I see it is not some unique form of energy or particulate matter. It is the byproduct of ions jumping the synapse. Now, you beg to differ that the brain is capable of being solely responsible for conscious thought. That's fine. I see it otherwise. But my conclusions are not illogical.

This is contradictory because if matter and energy are conserved, then so is consciousness. If you say we die and cease to exist, then from whence did we come? Did we become alive out of non-existence? I highly doubt that.

Consciousness is neither matter nor energy. Ergo, it needs not be conserved. Tell me...have you heard of something called evolution? Because that's what I think happened. You'll notice that creatures with consciousness or some semblance of consciousness seem to be higher up the food chain. Why isn't consciousness a selected trait? You treat consciousness as if it is absolutely there or it is absolutely not. In reality, it is a fuzzy gradient. Chimpanzees display at least rudimentary conscious thought. Given that it seems more like a gradient than just something erupting out of what was nothing, evolution as the ultimate cause of consciousness is not all that unlikely. Something wasn't just spontaneously created...and at the same time, that something has not always needed to exist.

I'm cutting out the middle man. Why does some outside entity need to be the source of consciousness? What created that entity? What created the entity that created the entity? Unless you're suggesting that once humans started being born, conscious entities started springing up, seemingly out of nothingness. The idea that our brains are the sole source of consciousness has the fewest variables and is actually verifiable. All you do with the outside source argument is raise even more questions without any definite answer. Again, could you be right? Sure. But I highly doubt it.

I couldn't be bothered reading through all of this, but I just saw mention of OBEs again. Yes, out of body experiences DO NOT prove an afterlife.

let's suposse for a minute that you can somehow through meditation or whatnot, induce an astral projection or OBE(out of body experience), it does not prove life after death. I would like it to be but what if it's just you being able to project your "energy" outside of your body while you are alive because after all, your brain is much like an electrical appliance or a radio that sends out waves, but once the batteries are gone, then..thats it. so in a sense, yes you can move "yourself" out of your body and go places and prove that you are indeed not confined to your flesh, but it's not a soul so to speak just you projecting your brain waves outside of the confines of your brain. and once your life is gone, then that ability is gone as well.

I also think its worth saying that you'll always have a hard time debating life after death if you support it because there is just no decent evidence. I've noticed a lot of debate in this topic uses the logic 'that just because you can't disprove something, you can't be sure it doesn't exist'. Sure, thats true. But you can take any topic in philosophy and use that logic. It doesn't prove anything, nor make your argument stronger.
Life after death all relies on belief. And you can't really argue with that.

So you've seemed to ignore that link/reference again, Mario? Nothing to say about it?

Originally Posted by Mario92

Call me close minded all you like, but until I see some valid evidence, I'm not going to sway.

You believe something without seeing what you call "valid evidence", right here:

Yes, I only know of existence. Of course, I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in anything beyond existence. Now, I could be wrong.

You're can't be wrong here, that's the point. Proof is extraneous and impossible; you don't need it. This is the difference in paradigm. People who are naive are the one's who want you to prove it.

It confirms nothing at all. It shows that people with NDE's have similar experiences. It does not give any accurate sense of what the source of these similar experiences are. It might as well be a physical process for all we know.

Unless you have had a NDE, you can't say it doesn't confirm anything, because that's the point. Skepticism works better with an open mind. At least most believers can see consistency, reliability and concordance with spiritual philosophy even while they haven't experienced what would confirm it anyway.

They're ideas founded on thousands of years of religion. That doesn't mean they're real.

It means it's reliable and consistent, and finally, valid. I can clearly tell that you're biased now. On the other hand I can see that I acknowledge science but also that it is not actually against religion or visa versa.

We're not talking about non-existence. I'm talking about the chemical reactions sustaining conscious thought ceasing to take place. [...] But my conclusions are not illogical.

I am talking about it because it is an important point, and it is not illogical. Discussing chemical reactions, on the other hand, may be logical, but it is extraneous. Chemical reactions don't cause consciousness, but they occur out of its source. Like I said, reality is not an independent existence in consciousness. This is obvious in what has been demonstrated in quantum physics.

Consciousness is neither matter nor energy. Ergo, it needs not be conserved.

Consciousness is part of matter/energy, ergo it is conserved automatically because it is not subject or limited to matter/energy.

Notice that we have discussed a lot of this already, I.e. in the How are we not a computer? thread. I'm not so keen to be repeating myself again.

Originally Posted by Loaf

I also think its worth saying that you'll always have a hard time debating life after death if you support it because there is just no decent evidence. I've noticed a lot of debate in this topic uses the logic 'that just because you can't disprove something, you can't be sure it doesn't exist'. Sure, thats true. But you can take any topic in philosophy and use that logic. It doesn't prove anything, nor make your argument stronger.

That's obvious to most people who understand the scientific method. You can apply the so called 'logic' to any subjective matter and end up with the same result. Because that's the nature of subjective premises: not provable. The problem here is that all reality is subjective, yet some of you here think that you need to prove what innate to one's reality and existing. However, if you take notice, what I'm saying distinguishes the concern a little further than that.

Originally Posted by really

So you've seemed to ignore that link/reference again, Mario? Nothing to say about it?

What link where?

You believe something without seeing what you call "valid evidence", right here:

You're can't be wrong here, that's the point. Proof is extraneous and impossible; you don't need it. This is the difference in paradigm. People who are naive are the one's who want you to prove it.

I have five senses I use to collect information about the world around me. They could be flawed, surely. But I have no reason to believe they are. I have no evidence at all for any other sort of existence, so why should I believe anything other than what my senses are telling me?

Unless you have had a NDE, you can't say it doesn't confirm anything, because that's the point. Skepticism works better with an open mind. At least most believers can see consistency, reliability and concordance with spiritual philosophy even while they haven't experienced what would confirm it anyway.

I see consistency. I don't see why it has to be tied to spiritual philosophy. Remind me again of exactly why all NDE's can't be the product of a body and mind shutting down.

It means it's reliable and consistent, and finally, valid. I can clearly tell that you're biased now. On the other hand I can see that I acknowledge science but also that it is not actually against religion or visa versa.

Karma: from Indian religions, namely Hindu. Heaven and hell: See Judeo-Christianity. Founded in religion.

I am talking about it because it is an important point, and it is not illogical. Discussing chemical reactions, on the other hand, may be logical, but it is extraneous. Chemical reactions don't cause consciousness, but they occur out of its source. Like I said, reality is not an independent existence in consciousness. This is obvious in what has been demonstrated in quantum physics.

This is where we have our impasse. You assert that consciousness is from without the body. I assert it is from entirely within. The reason your solution is less likely is because it factors in unnecessary variables. Under the principle of Occam's Razor, the simplest solution is likely correct. As a man of science, while I maintain that you might be right, your solution invariably leads to more variables, and so is less plausible. We have very solid evidence of evolution. We can observe a gradient of consciousness. We have no observations for any sort of outside conscious entity. If you can show me that there is an entity outside the body responsible for consciousness, I will change my mind. I will spin on a fucking dime. But until you have so much as a single shred of evidence, I cannot hold your solution to be valid.

Consciousness is part of matter/energy, ergo it is conserved automatically because it is not subject or limited to matter/energy.

Again, this is where we reach an impasse. You say consciousness is part of matter/energy. How? Can we weigh consciousness? Can we feel the force of consciousness, or convert it into any other form of energy? Consciousness is a thought process. And even if it is somehow a part of energy or matter, you still can't show that it doesn't degrade with the body upon death, or is instantly converted to some other form of energy that destroys that consciousness.

Notice that we have discussed a lot of this already, I.e. in the How are we not a computer? thread. I'm not so keen to be repeating myself again.

Nor am I, but your logic is astonishingly flawed.

That's obvious to most people who understand the scientific method. You can apply the so called 'logic' to any subjective matter and end up with the same result. Because that's the nature of subjective premises: not provable. The problem here is that all reality is subjective, yet some of you here think that you need to prove what innate to one's reality and existing. However, if you take notice, what I'm saying distinguishes the concern a little further than that.

Here's a general rule of thumb: evidence or gtfo. While a proof of the afterlife would be nice, we'd accept a piece of valid evidence just as well. You are correct...it is impossible to know if this reality actually exists or not. HOWEVER, I have evidence that it does. I have five senses and a working brain (or a brain that works well enough as far as I'm concerned) that says I'm living in this reality. And I can be reasonably sure that reality is real (or real enough) by the principle of Occam's Razor. Fewer variables = more plausibility. I could be a delusional penguin. I could be in an insane asylum. But those are extra variables, and by definition, less likely. Still possible, but not very likely. If you wanted to observe someone and see if they're alive, you could measure that. You could observe the individual and collect evidence.

In short: while this reality may be false, it is stable enough and real enough that it might as well be reality. I'm seeing no escape from it, and I've become well-adapted to this reality. What I observe is what is relevant. Unless you can observe the afterlife with a reasonable degree of certainty, it is not relevant. It is not a testable, viable claim. It may be true, but I have no reason to believe so.

Now, I repeat: where is your evidence? NDE's and OBE's are not good evidence. Too little is actually known about them to draw any conclusions at all. As Loaf pointed out, there are other equally (if not more) plausible explanations for these phenomena. Here's the thing: unless you can produce evidence, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to take you seriously. Just because the afterlife falls into the spiritual realm, it does not excuse you from the burden of proof. There is nothing "more" to it.

Originally Posted by Mario92

What link where?

Originally Posted by really

In addition to this, there's the phenomena of Out-of-Body Experiences. Have you heard of the Monroe Institute? Furthermore have you watched Thomas Campbell's Big Theory of Everything? See this thread for more relevant info on debating consciousness, but especially the first shown post by Xaq (contains Youtube video/series link). It is well worth watching and it is easy to draw links to this topic.

I have five senses I use to collect information about the world around me. They could be flawed, surely. But I have no reason to believe they are. I have no evidence at all for any other sort of existence, so why should I believe anything other than what my senses are telling me?

You already got my point before, but now you're just talking about extraneous facts. You said "Yes, I only know of existence. Of course, I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in anything beyond existence." You know of your senses, regardless of whether they're correct or not, and yet this is purely subjective and not provable, detectable or a product of material. Knowing of existence is not interpreting existence, it goes beyond appearances and the body/mind, therefore it is a spiritual concern. You don't need to look for consciousness because all of this experiential phenomena is happening within it.

I see consistency. I don't see why it has to be tied to spiritual philosophy. Remind me again of exactly why all NDE's can't be the product of a body and mind shutting down.

As I understand them, Near-Death experiences reveal a presence or an awareness that one's consciousness (or life) is not subject to time or space, hence consciousness is known as indestructible. It is impossible for something experiential such as this, to be a product of material and chemicals, since experience is obviously beyond all the describable and restricted properties that material entails; two completely different qualities and categorize. The nature of experience and revelation is obviously a spiritual matter and not a matter of mathematics or chemistry.

Karma: from Indian religions, namely Hindu. Heaven and hell: See Judeo-Christianity. Founded in religion.

Why are you telling me this? Heaven and hell is obviously part of Karma.

Spoiler for evidence or gtfo.:

This is where we have our impasse. You assert that consciousness is from without the body. I assert it is from entirely within. The reason your solution is less likely is because it factors in unnecessary variables. Under the principle of Occam's Razor, the simplest solution is likely correct. As a man of science, while I maintain that you might be right, your solution invariably leads to more variables, and so is less plausible. We have very solid evidence of evolution. We can observe a gradient of consciousness. We have no observations for any sort of outside conscious entity. If you can show me that there is an entity outside the body responsible for consciousness, I will change my mind. I will spin on a fucking dime. But until you have so much as a single shred of evidence, I cannot hold your solution to be valid.

[...]

Again, this is where we reach an impasse. You say consciousness is part of matter/energy. How? Can we weigh consciousness? Can we feel the force of consciousness, or convert it into any other form of energy? Consciousness is a thought process. And even if it is somehow a part of energy or matter, you still can't show that it doesn't degrade with the body upon death, or is instantly converted to some other form of energy that destroys that consciousness.

[...]

Here's a general rule of thumb: evidence or gtfo. While a proof of the afterlife would be nice, we'd accept a piece of valid evidence just as well. You are correct...it is impossible to know if this reality actually exists or not. HOWEVER, I have evidence that it does. I have five senses and a working brain (or a brain that works well enough as far as I'm concerned) that says I'm living in this reality. And I can be reasonably sure that reality is real (or real enough) by the principle of Occam's Razor. Fewer variables = more plausibility. I could be a delusional penguin. I could be in an insane asylum. But those are extra variables, and by definition, less likely. Still possible, but not very likely. If you wanted to observe someone and see if they're alive, you could measure that. You could observe the individual and collect evidence.

In short: while this reality may be false, it is stable enough and real enough that it might as well be reality. I'm seeing no escape from it, and I've become well-adapted to this reality. What I observe is what is relevant. Unless you can observe the afterlife with a reasonable degree of certainty, it is not relevant. It is not a testable, viable claim. It may be true, but I have no reason to believe so.

Now, I repeat: where is your evidence? NDE's and OBE's are not good evidence. Too little is actually known about them to draw any conclusions at all. As Loaf pointed out, there are other equally (if not more) plausible explanations for these phenomena. Here's the thing: unless you can produce evidence, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to take you seriously. Just because the afterlife falls into the spiritual realm, it does not excuse you from the burden of proof. There is nothing "more" to it.

Where did I say consciousness is an outside entity?

Speaking of variables, my "solution" seems to be the most plausible. Because after all, if you see that you can only know of life, consequently there is no possibility of death. There are no big variables here; life is a constant. Perhaps the only variable that is relevant is the gradient or level of consciousness in the given individual.

Also, see the above link for "shreds" of evidence, it may be relevant. Doesn't quantum physics count?

Originally Posted by really

You already got my point before, but now you're just talking about extraneous facts. You said "Yes, I only know of existence. Of course, I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in anything beyond existence." You know of your senses, regardless of whether they're correct or not, and yet this is purely subjective and not provable, detectable or a product of material. Knowing of existence is not interpreting existence, it goes beyond appearances and the body/mind, therefore it is a spiritual concern. You don't need to look for consciousness because all of this experiential phenomena is happening within it.

Maybe I'm just being dense, but I still don't know what you're getting at. I use senses to collect information about the world I perceive to inhabit. Those are the only tools at my disposal. No amount of spiritual enlightenment will change that. So it may be subjective. Maybe you don't exist. That's fine. My senses tell me otherwise. And seeing how they're the only means I have to collect information around me, why should I distrust them? Certainly they may be flawed, but I don't exactly have an alternative. There are beings in my little world that have senses the same as mine, and can help me confirm that in the world I perceive to inhabit, when I'm looking at a building, it's actually there. It might not be, but I don't have a reason to believe otherwise.

As I understand them, Near-Death experiences reveal a presence or an awareness that one's consciousness (or life) is not subject to time or space, hence consciousness is known as indestructible. It is impossible for something experiential such as this, to be a product of material and chemicals, since experience is obviously beyond all the describable and restricted properties that material entails; two completely different qualities and categorize. The nature of experience and revelation is obviously a spiritual matter and not a matter of mathematics or chemistry.

Look, I got the link, and I can tell you I'm not going to sit through an hour and a half of youtube videos. So, if you'd like a level playing field to argue on, perhaps you could help elaborate on how NDE's prove consciousness is not subject to time nor space. And what do you mean here by "experience?" I experience the wind. I experience tastes, sensations, thoughts, feelings. In other words, I experience reality as interpreted by the brain. This is very much a matter of chemistry and mathematics, as you put it. Much research is taking place to try and understand conscious thought and its source. THAT is how you observe the world and draw conclusions about it. Not by observing some little-known phenomenon and trying to explain it in some way that makes sense to you.

Where did I say consciousness is an outside entity?

When you said it's eternal, and cannot be created nor destroyed. Ergo, if humans are not gifted with naturally conscious thought, there is an outside entity that somehow bestows it upon us. You can call that a soul or some imperceptible universal force or whatever you want. The bottom line is: unless humans can have conscious thought all by their lonesome, there is something outside the human body and the human mind that gives us consciousness.

Speaking of variables, my "solution" seems to be the most plausible. Because after all, if you see that you can only know of life, consequently there is no possibility of death. There are no big variables here; life is a constant. Perhaps the only variable that is relevant is the gradient or level of consciousness in the given individual.

Your body stops working. You're dead. That variable is still there. And now you still have the outside entity problem. The solution with the fewest variables is the one we already know happens: evolution. If we accept that conscious thought has been selected through evolution, as evidence suggests, then there is no outside entity. There is no eternal conscious thing that has been waiting around specifically for humans to evolve. Consciousness becomes a regular bodily process. When the body stops working, so does it. Kind of like pulling the plug on a computer. The computer is still physically there, but there's no power to run it. The power didn't just vanish into thin air, either. It stopped flowing to the computer.

Also, see the above link for "shreds" of evidence, it may be relevant. Doesn't quantum physics count?

Quantum physics! Another relatively new frontier. Again, you're taking relatively vague or ill-known concepts and trying to make consciousness fit within them. Unexplained events are exactly that: unexplained. There are things in this world we do not know. Mankind has been deceived before. People thought the world was flat. It appeared flat enough. But as our understanding grew, we found it was round. And also not in the center of the universe.

I see a building - therefore I must trust my senses that it's there - what about dreams? What do dreams have to tell us about death? What do dreams tell us about experience and consciousness? What is the true origin of experiencing a reality? The body? The brain? Consciousness?

Exploratory science starts with questions. You can't ask questions if you don't think outside the box. What if our understanding of consciousness and experiencing is wrong, or at the least incomplete?

Entertainment gives us as a strange view of ghosts and the after life. For one, for some strange unknown reason ghosts CAN NOT FEEL. They can't feel pleasure, and they can't feel pain. They can't taste food, they can't smell! The simple reasoning behind this ideology was - ghosts don't have a body - DUH.

But that very same senseless ghost could talk, hear and see, not to mention THINK. All traits of which according to science, require a body.

Either way, its silly of entertainment to strip a ghost down of some senses and not others. Why can a ghost still see if it doesn't have physical eyes?

On the other hand in dreams, we have the capacity to interact with an environment that has no physical existence, but still offers an experience so real, it sometimes fools into thinking that it is physical. In dreams we can smell, taste, touch, hear, see, all independently of our actual physical eyes, ears, skin, mouth, and nose.

Either a body is completely irrelevant in experiencing a form of reality, or in dreams we have a dream body with it's own built in dream senses to sense the dream world - which then sends those dream signals to the brain. The latter is the belief of an astral body.

If we assume that the mainstream scientific understanding of dreams is correct, then this leaves body (minus the brain) out of the equation as the origin of experiencing (a reality). Were left with two sources of experiencing a reality - the brain and consciousness.

My conclusion is, experiencing a reality is an intrinsic property of consciousness, and ONLY consciousness. Your conscious experience of any reality is always independnet of the processes happening in your brain.

Take for example the very chair you're sitting on. It doesn't matter if your butt always sends signals to the brain, it doesn't matter if the brain always receives and process these signals. This alone is not enough to gaurantee that you experience the experience of an ass growing number by the second!

Because experience is something only consciousness can do. And not necessarily those brain signals of a butt growing numb. Rather, the consciousness seems to dig into the information held in the brain to pull out what it wants to experience. You can experience your ass getting numb if you want, or you can just tune it out.

Knowing that not all brain processes are experienced by consciousness, can we then ask the question if a brain is necessary to experience a reality? Given the diversity of life on planet earth, I think the answer is no.

The next question is, can our human consciousness experience a reality without the brain? If so, what is the origin of consciousness?

Mainstream science says that consciousness originates from the brain. But not all scientists agree. MANY scientists today believe that consciousness is "downloaded" by the brain. In a similar way that your computer (physical) is downloading this website (digital) from the internet (a web of energy holding the digital information). Consciousness is believed to originate, not in the brain, but in a "web of energy".

It's this "web of energy" that exists every where that these scientists are so interested in. It's been called many things, but it's most well known title is the Field. This Field of energy holds the "information" of consciousnesses, like the internet holds the information of a website.

These scientists are not satisfied with simply believing, they support their work-in-progress ideas with genuine research. It is a work in progress. But so far, what research is out there is promising.

Some of this research is even at the cellular level. I'm too lazy to drag the name of the scientists, but if you're interested I'll get off my lazy ass and find it for you . MY MEMORY IS A BIT FUZZY. But from what I remember this research suggests that our cells can still receive information from our brain, even if the cell has been separated from the rest of body and is thousands of miles away! This research suggests that cells separated from the body, can react as if they are still a part of the body.

Not only do the cells react/receive information as if they are still a part of the body, but they seem to be able to do so INSTANTLY. Again, instantly even if its thousands of miles away.

At the same time, for years people who have received donated organs seem to be able to download information (thoughts, emotions, likes, dislikes, personality traits) of the original owner of the organs! Scientists still don't have an actual answer for this phenomenon.

While some believe the cells harbors the memory information physically, others believe that this is silly.A single cell doesn't have an addiction to smoking.

Other scientists believe that the reason cells separated from the body can continue to receive information is because: Our thoughts are composed of light, and carries all the properties of light, including it's speed and far extending reach.

These scientists don't stop. They just ask more questions. This research is happening with biologists. They believe that every cell in our body has a receptor that is unique to us, only capable of receiving the information carried in our thoughts. Others have set up ingenious experiments to test if thoughts are composed of light.

From using sensitive equipment that can pick up the light of galaxies in the dark void of our night sky, and turning it on human beings, to seeing if intense focus and intention effect light loving creatures like algae.

Every day these experiments give strength to the idea that consciousness is so much more than the processes of a brain. But these experiments also radically alter our entire world view. Everything. Including how we should interact with other beings.









Now some people believe that consciousness only directly influences subatomic particles. That the double slit and the observer effect only influences the tiniest parts of reality.

BUT.....

The double slit experiment was repeated successfully with one of the largest natural molecules on earth. This large molecule, the size of a city compared to a subatomic particle, behaved as a potential, and flew through both slits at the same moment in time. From molecules we get chemistry, and chemistry allows for biological processes! Consciousness collapses the potential of the subatomic into a physical reality, does it also collapse the molecule that exists in a state of potential?

With every new discovery, there are only more questions. Were not done here. But I think that there is enough insane research out there to hang up the materialistic world view of consciousness.

Originally Posted by juroara

I see a building - therefore I must trust my senses that it's there - what about dreams? What do dreams have to tell us about death? What do dreams tell us about experience and consciousness? What is the true origin of experiencing a reality? The body? The brain? Consciousness?

I didn't say that. I said my senses could very well be flawed. But I have no way of knowing if they are or not. In dreams, I at least have tools at my disposal, like reality checks, to test the validity of reality. Kinda hard to do in real life if you don't have any idea what to look for, or if there's even anything to look for. I personally label the brain as the source of experience. Without it to interpret messages we receive from our senses, we can't experience anything but our own thoughts...though it would be interesting to see if we even have thoughts if we aren't ever exposed to any sort of stimulus.

Exploratory science starts with questions. You can't ask questions if you don't think outside the box. What if our understanding of consciousness and experiencing is wrong, or at the least incomplete?

Likely it is. And I want to find out once and for all exactly what is going on as much as the next person. But without that essential knowledge, it is only speculation from both sides. Really's solution contains more variables, and by the principle of Occam's Razor, is less plausible. It could still happen, but if I had to bet on it, I'd say that his solution is incorrect.

On the other hand in dreams, we have the capacity to interact with an environment that has no physical existence, but still offers an experience so real, it sometimes fools into thinking that it is physical. In dreams we can smell, taste, touch, hear, see, all independently of our actual physical eyes, ears, skin, mouth, and nose.

Capitalizing on past memories, all stored within the brain.

Either a body is completely irrelevant in experiencing a form of reality, or in dreams we have a dream body with it's own built in dream senses to sense the dream world - which then sends those dream signals to the brain. The latter is the belief of an astral body.

Or the brain uses past memories and experiences to create its own signals.

My conclusion is, experiencing a reality is an intrinsic property of consciousness, and ONLY consciousness. Your conscious experience of any reality is always independnet of the processes happening in your brain.

My conclusion is this: the brain is the source of consciousness. Its processes are the ultimate source of consciousness. Not only is it vital for interpreting and experiencing whatever perceived reality we're all in, but it is also tied directly to conscious thought.

Take for example the very chair you're sitting on. It doesn't matter if your butt always sends signals to the brain, it doesn't matter if the brain always receives and process these signals. This alone is not enough to gaurantee that you experience the experience of an ass growing number by the second!

Of course I can't really be sure if my ass is really on a chair or not. But if my brain is mistaken, so is my conscious thought. They both work to convince me that this reality is real. I can feel my ass on the chair, as interpreted by the brain. It might be fake. It might be false. But my RC's are working right now and I haven't a clue as to what to look for on any other sort of plane of existence. For all intents and purposes, my ass is on this chair. I'm experiencing the sensation, the reality, of having my butt on a cushion.

Because experience is something only consciousness can do. And not necessarily those brain signals of a butt growing numb. Rather, the consciousness seems to dig into the information held in the brain to pull out what it wants to experience. You can experience your ass getting numb if you want, or you can just tune it out.

That could also be the brain tuning out the signal over time as it is not directly involved in any active thought. Think of a computer running programs. The programs are always doing something, but the computer can assign priority to certain tasks over others. So, your game of solitaire might take lower precedence over, say, a complete system virus scan. The program is still there. It's still running. But the computer isn't really "thinking" about it. Your brain, in the presence of continuous chemical signals, learns to tune certain ones out. Imagine getting slapped, for example. Your consciousness doesn't pick that one out to experience or disregard. If you get slapped several times in quick succession, your conscious mind won't just stop listening to the signal from your brain. But if you sit down for several hours of slapping, the area will go numb and your brain will tune out the input.

Knowing that not all brain processes are experienced by consciousness, can we then ask the question if a brain is necessary to experience a reality? Given the diversity of life on planet earth, I think the answer is no.

If you don't have a brain or a body, you cannot interpret signals. Doubt me? Gouge out your eyes and tell me if you can see. Have a surgeon take an ice cream scoop to part of your brain and see if you're still the same person. Perhaps the reason you don't experience everything at once is because doing so is not of evolutionary benefit. Perhaps being hyper-aware of everything is too great a strain on the brain. Perhaps we have evolved or adapted content filters that let the brain only send relevant information to the conscious center of the brain for active experience. You call me narrow-minded, but you yourselves do not consider the alternatives.

Given all the diversity of life on this planet, it all has a "brain" in one form or another. Something that tells it how to assemble or behave. What proteins to make. What its function is. Where food is. That brain takes many forms, but it is always present. So, if the brain is not necessary, why is it in every single form of life?

Mainstream science says that consciousness originates from the brain. But not all scientists agree. MANY scientists today believe that consciousness is "downloaded" by the brain. In a similar way that your computer (physical) is downloading this website (digital) from the internet (a web of energy holding the digital information). Consciousness is believed to originate, not in the brain, but in a "web of energy".

I'd like to see some concrete numbers on your "MANY" scientists who believe this. If you mean a couple thousand, then there are also MANY scientists who think creationism is real, too. Doesn't mean they're right.

It's this "web of energy" that exists every where that these scientists are so interested in. It's been called many things, but it's most well known title is the Field. This Field of energy holds the "information" of consciousnesses, like the internet holds the information of a website.

Providing the field actually exists.

These scientists are not satisfied with simply believing, they support their work-in-progress ideas with genuine research. It is a work in progress. But so far, what research is out there is promising.

Great. Let me know when they obtain actual results.

Some of this research is even at the cellular level. I'm too lazy to drag the name of the scientists, but if you're interested I'll get off my lazy ass and find it for you . MY MEMORY IS A BIT FUZZY. But from what I remember this research suggests that our cells can still receive information from our brain, even if the cell has been separated from the rest of body and is thousands of miles away! This research suggests that cells separated from the body, can react as if they are still a part of the body.

That begs several questions, though: could the cell be picking up on signals from other people? Assuming it's even possible, specialized cells tend to perform exactly the same function in most humans. Second question would be if the cells are responding to residual messages...which is to say they received messages that told them to behave that way before being separated from the body, giving the appearance that they are responding to the brain. Just saying...there are a great number of possible explanations out there. Such an unexplained event cannot be explained satisfactorily without the proper evidence.

Not only do the cells react/receive information as if they are still a part of the body, but they seem to be able to do so INSTANTLY. Again, instantly even if its thousands of miles away.

Here's another thought, then: brain waves are able to travel vast amounts of space very quickly. The cells are responding not to some conscious entity, but the brain waves. Not saying it's right. Not saying it's a valid thought. But it is a thought that cannot be discredited any less than the idea that they are responding to a conscious entity.

At the same time, for years people who have received donated organs seem to be able to download information (thoughts, emotions, likes, dislikes, personality traits) of the original owner of the organs! Scientists still don't have an actual answer for this phenomenon.

'kay, I have another possible one: the brain makes "backup" memories very loosely within parts of the body. The heart is often used to symbolize love, right? Maybe people make backups of emotion inside the heart. Who knows?

While some believe the cells harbors the memory information physically, others believe that this is silly.A single cell doesn't have an addiction to smoking.

But it may be used to the presence of nicotine. Perhaps the cells, used to a different lifestyle, try to influence the body to adjust to that particular lifestyle.

Other scientists believe that the reason cells separated from the body can continue to receive information is because: Our thoughts are composed of light, and carries all the properties of light, including it's speed and far extending reach.

If that were true, I'd be able to light up a room by working my way through a sudoku puzzle.

These scientists don't stop. They just ask more questions. This research is happening with biologists. They believe that every cell in our body has a receptor that is unique to us, only capable of receiving the information carried in our thoughts. Others have set up ingenious experiments to test if thoughts are composed of light.

I'm all for research. Bring it on. But be careful of the conclusions you draw.

Every day these experiments give strength to the idea that consciousness is so much more than the processes of a brain. But these experiments also radically alter our entire world view. Everything. Including how we should interact with other beings.

"Give strength" is not the same as "confirm." Signs may point to the solution that consciousness is from without the brain, but the signs may also be pointing to some other, entirely different solution that nobody has even thought of before.

With every new discovery, there are only more questions. Were not done here. But I think that there is enough insane research out there to hang up the materialistic world view of consciousness.

I respectfully disagree. I see interesting results, but I don't see any solid cause of those results. Have you considered cultural bias? You were likely raised with the ideas of ghosts, souls, spirits, what have you. So to you, research that gives support to your ideas may make sense. But, what if you had no knowledge of these things? Perhaps you would come up with an equally plausible but totally opposite response. In the end: the results are largely comprised of unexplained phenomena, and are not enough to draw conclusions with.

Thanks for the big post Juroara.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Maybe I'm just being dense, but I still don't know what you're getting at. I use senses to collect information about the world I perceive to inhabit. Those are the only tools at my disposal. No amount of spiritual enlightenment will change that. So it may be subjective. Maybe you don't exist. That's fine. My senses tell me otherwise. And seeing how they're the only means I have to collect information around me, why should I distrust them? Certainly they may be flawed, but I don't exactly have an alternative. There are beings in my little world that have senses the same as mine, and can help me confirm that in the world I perceive to inhabit, when I'm looking at a building, it's actually there. It might not be, but I don't have a reason to believe otherwise.

[...]

When you said it's eternal, and cannot be created nor destroyed. Ergo, if humans are not gifted with naturally conscious thought, there is an outside entity that somehow bestows it upon us. You can call that a soul or some imperceptible universal force or whatever you want. The bottom line is: unless humans can have conscious thought all by their lonesome, there is something outside the human body and the human mind that gives us consciousness.

[...]

Your body stops working. You're dead. That variable is still there. And now you still have the outside entity problem. The solution with the fewest variables is the one we already know happens: evolution. If we accept that conscious thought has been selected through evolution, as evidence suggests, then there is no outside entity. There is no eternal conscious thing that has been waiting around specifically for humans to evolve. Consciousness becomes a regular bodily process. When the body stops working, so does it. Kind of like pulling the plug on a computer. The computer is still physically there, but there's no power to run it. The power didn't just vanish into thin air, either. It stopped flowing to the computer.

Ok I apologize if I was confusing but I can see that overall you don't know what I'm talking about.

Let's look at it this way; let me simplify it symbolically for the sake of discussion:

Here are some properties or depictions I might use to help define consciousness:

Note: '>' means "greater than" or "has priority over".

Consciousness > Manifest Universe
Subjective > Objective
Self-existence > Proof
Awareness > Concept
Eternal > Transitory
Intangible & Formless > Tangible Material / Form
Field of Consciousness > Degrees/Gradations of Consciousness and Attractor patterns
Consciousness registers all information of the universe.

Therefore:

Consciousness =/= thought-forms.
Consciousness =/= awake vs. asleep.
Consciousness =/= sensory input.

Consciousness: Intangible capacity for life and experience and exists as a boundless field of energy. Consciousness is contextual and is therefore not limited to a mere thought-form, since thought-forms are what appears within consciousness. Sensory phenomena also appear within consciousness and awareness, but senses are not consciousness itself. You can be unable to perceive out of every one of your five senses, yet you may still be conscious.

To know of consciousness is a purely subjective knowingness, and it already exists but is typically outside ordinary human awareness. It is not "outside" anything in terms of space, yet it is an ever-present field, and therefore it is not an entity either. The fact that consciousness encompasses the whole universe means it cannot be located in time or space. All reality is subjective. Objective existence still has a subjective premise and cannot exist independently.

Look, I got the link, and I can tell you I'm not going to sit through an hour and a half of youtube videos. So, if you'd like a level playing field to argue on, perhaps you could help elaborate on how NDE's prove consciousness is not subject to time nor space. And what do you mean here by "experience?" I experience the wind. I experience tastes, sensations, thoughts, feelings. In other words, I experience reality as interpreted by the brain. This is very much a matter of chemistry and mathematics, as you put it. Much research is taking place to try and understand conscious thought and its source. THAT is how you observe the world and draw conclusions about it. Not by observing some little-known phenomenon and trying to explain it in some way that makes sense to you.

[...]

Quantum physics! Another relatively new frontier. Again, you're taking relatively vague or ill-known concepts and trying to make consciousness fit within them. Unexplained events are exactly that: unexplained. There are things in this world we do not know. Mankind has been deceived before. People thought the world was flat. It appeared flat enough. But as our understanding grew, we found it was round. And also not in the center of the universe.

This is not ill-known, that's for sure. If you actually showed an interest and looked at the thread and the videos I'm talking about, you would know better about what I'm discussing. It is all very obvious and well researched, you might notice.

NDE, enlightenment or what's within normal human consciousness, is essentially not subject to time or space because the field of consciousness is non-linear. A NDE or spiritual enlightenment is just a confirmation or awareness of this. This even further contradicts why an eternal, consistent, all-pervading phenomena should be a byproduct of chemical reactions. It is well known here to be the other way around, like induction. After all, material does not encompass consciousness, it arises out of it. This is why "life" is invunerable to material forms and processes; which are mere expressions of it.

Science works from the other direction, but while spirituality works from different realms or paradigms. Mario, if you want concrete evidence, you will be falling short in your expectations. You really shouldn't be in this forum (Inner Sanctum) if that's all you can tolerate.

There's a lot in that post that I don't agree with...

I like evidence. Evidence is good. And I'm afraid I'm going to require concrete evidence before I start drawing conclusions. Sorry, mate, but seems like we're gonna have to agree to disagree. I'm a material sort of fellow. It's who I am and what I do. You're not. That's fine. May you find happiness in whatever life this is.