Thread: Atheism and Lucid Dreaming

Originally Posted by Miguelinileugim

Hi! New to this exciting philosophical discussion! I'm an absolute idealist and I believe that the only difference between lucid dreams and the real world is continuity!

Someone to agree/disagree with me please?

So when you're stating continuity being the medium that sets this distinction between the two, you're also implying that the real one is one devoid of disturbances compared to lucid dreaming (since continuity obviously related to consistency). I mean, I can understand why you might think that (if you're implying that it's the reality with the continuity) if you were thinking about basic laws and rules we've made with collections of adequate evidence, but in terms of the real word being more consistent than lucid dreams honestly depends on how open-minded you are.

For instance, would you say a person that has a mental disorder is still embodies the concept of continuity more than a person who is lucid dreaming but isn't capable of stabilizing the dream (which is a disturbance, but often temporary if you're experienced in LDing) for that moment? Do you also imply that having anxiety is not a form of disturbances that completely contradicts the implication of the real world being continuity?

If so, I think I disagree with you, but this is just based on the sentence alone you typed, so do correct me if I'm wrong.

I can talk about all sorts of things related to lucid dreaming and waking life, but in a practical sense to see what you really mean lucid dreaming (again correct me if I'm wrong here if you're implying something else) as having too many disturbances to be considered one of continuity compared to waking life, it's kind of contradicting (at least when you apply this mental filter I'll be talking about right now), especially if a person thinks lucid dreaming is all within the confines of their mind.

So with this presumption of lucid dreaming (that I feel most people like to shift to prevent "disturbances" of their core convictions), you are also saying that the mechanics of your mind has disturbances, therefore your perception of reality isn't an example of continuity in some sense.

I just think it's pretty straightforward that if you want to even grasp a sense of absolute continuity (just grabbing the absolute idealist you label yourself as), you'd have to go through "enlightenment" or "higher awareness," and the two terms themselves honestly are subjective, and a lot of people will go around stating "Oh, that's not enlightenment/higher awareness....blah blah blah."

Now for lucid dreaming, I can understand that in our perception when we DO realize we're dreaming, the environment might look incomplete compared to reality where things are just constant and static (or so it seems), but I think lucid dreaming obviously shows signs of displaying more continuity than waking life.

I think the presumption as to why real life has more continuity than others (with things being static and molded based on our attachments to it) isn't necessarily true. Since lucid dreaming is just another level of consciousness that not many people make a "static" attachment too, things look incomplete in some sense. But with lucid dreaming, it's presumed the subconscious' potential for displaying superior experiences of continuity than waking life is augmented dramatically (i.e. Lucid dreaming screaming "clarity," "vivid," or anything that implies stabilization).

But even with that and NON-lucid dreams, I honestly see non-lucid dreams as watching a movie, and despite the randomness and vague metaphors (if you believe some dreams have meaning....but if you think it's apophenia, just ignore this), it honestly has more continuity than in waking life.

Non-lucid generally have a Point A to Point B standard, and yes, there can be disturbances, but it's based on how we react to the situation (waking up after a nightmare and not seeing the end, nature calling to us in the middle of the night to use the bathroom, etc.), but it's our own reaction that to me honestly breaks the continuity of the non-lucid dream itself (our own reality in waking life is causing a disturbance rather than being constant on its own).

Lucid dreaming can also have a Point A to Point B (again, I'm stating this based on your conviction of continuity), but since we are able to know we're dreaming, the chances of us "disturbing" the dream plot is augmented as well.

However, even with that, if our mentality is one that allows us to experience things in a dream that are in our favor, that in some sense is a form of continuity, and if you believe in establishing a bond with elements of your subconscious (dream guides and what have you), the mental blocks we have that prevent us from going beyond into imagination and such (conscious, subconscious, and possibly unconscious) are less likely (keyword there) to encroach our experience in having a lucid dream of continuity.


--------------------------


As for OP, I was a Christian, but now I'm just in the void with religion ever since I indulged into lucid dreaming (if there's a label for it, I guess I'm Agnostic). I admit I still love doing more than just lucid dreaming, and often engage in mysticism, spiritual, and anything "abnormal" than the "lucid-dreaming-is-confines-of-your-mind-only-" bandwagon people jump into.

If someone can explain their beliefs in a reasonable matter, find a few people who like it, which pets their ego, good for them. But if they don't want to take some time to understand the concepts of things they reject (which usually leads to the demeanor of being intolerant), then they are as single-minded as anyone else....and I'm not saying it's a bad thing if you just want to live your life, but in terms of possible debate and discussion, it seems impractical.

I admit that certain things I'm trying to understand more makes me disregard my belief in Christianity completely, and I've become even more passive-aggressive towards people now, often treating them like "dream characters" at times, but if that happens, I usually get bored and say it's useless to be like that to people.

Then I get more into the idea of personal development, trying to launch myself into these subjective concepts (Astral projection, shared dreaming, dreaming vampires, Akashic Records, anything that's of interest)....and even if engaging in them involves being "delusional" to people who attempt to be practical and stick to their observations that actually skews their reality as well (in my opinion), so be it.

To me, if I were a person who says the "I believe in this, and I reject this other idea because..." thought process, it often gets boring stating to people I know who will just hold on to their beliefs either way.

So if the mind itself has its fallacies, if it naturally has mental blocks that often prevents one from being open to understanding concepts abnormal to THEM, I see that as an opportunity to gradually find loopholes around those fallacies (self-hypnosis and other forms of augmented suggestibility). Even if there's a "fallacy" in that endeavor alone, I rather take the totality of what I can recall off the top of my head and explore into the unknown rather than just sitting here on the computer waiting for other people to pet my ego.

Not that I'm implying anyone is doing that (I'm on my laptop, not a computer! ), but it's far more interesting to see how one can modify and improve themselves, decreasing the chances of mental blocks hindering their progressing towards understanding other levels of consciousness, and more.


===================

And as for the evidence....anecdotal or empirical.....if people attempt to make a collective and even healthy discussion of a certain belief that's too subjective and try to DEFINE the concept, that itself obviously allows mental blocks to encroach, which actually makes the people attempting to make definitions of the subjective concepts and being "scientific" more delusional than/or just as delusion as a person who just puts blind faith into them.

It's pretty obvious, any person that claims another person to prove something to them is obviously disregarding that the other person they're trying to see find evidence can easily ask them to make a claim with evidence as to why their beliefs aren't practical as well. It's just a clashing of egos, and both sides are just left stagnant in development.


Setting theories and setting adequate evidence to something subjective is going to have fallacies altogether, UNLESS people actually try to take the totality of what they learned so far and continue to progress and find ways to improve and modify their current schemata of something subjective that has certain definitions to it. (And that's basically what a practical endeavor of science is supposed to be in my opinion, but people forget the part where...."Oh, I'm getting there......"

I honestly don't see having a one-size-fits-all claim of evidence towards anything subjective...everyone is going to have their own unique perception of what's adequate evidence (empirical etc.), and that obviously sets attachments, which constrains their progression (unless they keep moving forward in exploring), which allows mental blocks to encroach their way of thinking practically, which makes them delusional.


I'll stop there, don't want to make novel out of this.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Serious question - have you spoken to your mom about it since that night? The reason I ask - I had a similar experience long ago when I was young, not with a black figure, but I couldn't sleep and was looking out my window late on a beautiful summer night when I saw a couple of stars begin to move slowly across the sky. They had been frozen in place for a long time - just like the rest of the stars, but suddenly they were moving, and they weren't planes or anything. They made a circle in the sky and rotated around each other for a while, then started making all kinds of patterns, sweeping across the sky. I was amazed, and my mom was in the room just down the hall with her light on and her door open, so I went in and asked her to come look at something. I was afraid it would have stopped, but it was still going when she got there, and we watched in awe for maybe 5 minutes, then all the stars froze into place again and became nothing but ordinary stars.

I had never believed in UFOs, but seeing this, and with my mom as witness to it, I began to believe. How could I not?

Many (many) years later, I was thinking about it and mentioned it to my mom, and she literally had no idea what I was talking about. She acted like I was crazy, and the memory being very old, I began to doubt I had even seen it at all.

Fast forward to finding this website and learning about sleep paralysis and false awakenings and related phenomena. In fact, here's a video about sleep paralysis and how it makes people experience all kinds of things they swear are real:



Here's one dealing specifically with shadow people:



So, maybe say something about it to your mom, see if she remembers it happening.

And I realize you weren't lying paralyzed in your bed when this happened - but people frequently have the same kind of experience when they WILD, only without being paralyzed in their bed - they believe they're fully awake and walking around - usually in their house, and see these strange things. Anyway, learning this stuff was extremely enlightening to me, and I'm very glad I finally discovered what it really was.

yeah i have, she told all her friends about it the next day and they all just said we were crazy.. understandable

@darkmatters thank you for the extra explanation I think I get the idea now and i must say it is a pretty impressive theory that got me thinking!

Here's my massive reply to your massive reply

As this is sooo long (though not as long as yours) I haven't been able to revise it more than 1 time, so if there's something unanswered, an incomprehensible metaphor, something "lost in translation" (english is not my native language) or anything you want to clarify, feel free to reply

I recommend you to reply like me, paragraph by paragraph, looong replies without logical structure are quite hard to comprehend



1st paragraph: Actually I find it hard to view lucid dreams as more consistent than the waking world, the waking world may seem inconsistent from time to time but it is almost flawless while lucid dreams are not.

2nd, 3rd and 4th paragraph: I wasn't saying that lucid dreams are, necessarily, always, for every sane or insane person, more real. OK, I said "real world" instead of "waking world", but that doesn't mean is necessarily more real than the other.

Even more, is paradoxical to be an absolute idealist and speak about a "real reality"

5th and 6th paragraph: Yes, I'm aware that even the same idea of absolute idealism contradicts itself. It's like saying "I believe X, so I will stop believing X as X tells me that X is not true" and then "wait... wasn't X true?" and then repeating the process till you understand that you're better off acting like X is true for everything but itself.

7th and 8th paragraph: Still, I don't believe that the "waking life" is necessarily more consistent/continuous than the "dream life".

9th, 10th and 11th paragraph: So, lucid dreams can be as continuous/consistent as real life? I agree then, but it depends of your perception of waking and dreaming reality.

12th paragraph: You have quite severe existential problems apparently. Though I suggest you to believe provisionally the "necessary" truth of science, you know, because science is the thing that makes more sense of the basket of things that don't make any metaphysical sense.

13th paragraph: I agree with that, being close-minded may prevent you from entering a sect, but a "developed" reason will do the same plus won't prevent you from experiencing good things like lucid dreaming.

14th paragraph: That's just the result of having a lot of confusing feelings together, you should have noticed that since you're now agnostic your mind is an anarchy (though that's not the only way, personally my mind is a police state and we probably don't differ too much in our philosophical positions).

15th and 16th paragraph: Still, science is a "necessary" truth, it doesn't have to be true, but as I said before, when nothing makes metaphysical sense, science is the non-metaphysical truest thing of all. So, I don't think is a good idea to see lucid dreaming unscientifically, though is a great idea to experience lucid dreaming that way I think.

17th paragraph: So, first you'll explore the unknown, then you'll rationalize it, great idea, though I prefer to set up my rational basis first and then start processing any rational/emotional/spiritual input I get from lucid dreams.

18th paragraph: However, no mental blocks = anarchy. And anarchy doesn't exists, it just means that there are many powers fighting together for control, understanding more things and destroying mind blocks is a great idea if you want to do some mental cleanup, but is a terrible idea to live with that.

You want to experience everything you get from lucid dreams in an anarchic way? That's fine, the problem is that the emotional and pseudo-rational input overload may even let you rationally-impaired for quite a lot of time.

Most things that seem extremely complex in an emotional way, in a rational way are just... emotions, maybe you aren't discovering anything new, maybe you're just having quite a lot of powerful emotions that are leading you to... well... nowhere but the unknown and to metaphysical uncertainty.

So, I suggest you to start searching for a new rational basis to process all the input you're getting from lucid dreaming, if you feel uncertain, it's probably because you haven't searched enough.

19th paragraph: Another metaphysical problem you'll have to solve.

20th paragraph: I agree, it's extremely hard to have a proper rational discussion, my trick is to be hyper-analytical, preferently using formal logic.

21th and 22th paragraph: Yes, thinking like that creates a lot of mental blocks. That's why I have quite a "strong" philosophical basis and that I use to reconstruct everything above them from time to time.

23th paragraph: That's not a novel! That's a thesis! This too!



P.S: Thanks for replying before too! You've set my personal record of "longest reply ever received for the shortest comment ever written"

Originally Posted by Miguelinileugim

Here's my massive reply to your massive reply

1st paragraph: Actually I find it hard to view lucid dreams as more consistent than the waking world, the waking world may seem inconsistent from time to time but it is almost flawless while lucid dreams are not.I

Yeah, I agree that waking life is almost flawless because it's what I've been accustomed to for most of my life. But I would assume that if a person had 20 years of lucid dreaming recall, there would be some consistency, but it would be based on them already being accustomed to how their subconscious associates things in their dreams (it may not be as perfect as their associations in the real world of course).

2nd, 3rd and 4th paragraph: I wasn't saying that lucid dreams are, necessarily, always, for every sane or insane person, more real. OK, I said "real world" instead of "waking world", but that doesn't mean is necessarily more real than the other.

Even more, is paradoxical to be an absolute idealist and speak about a "real reality"

Agreed.

5th and 6th paragraph: Yes, I'm aware that even the same idea of absolute idealism contradicts itself. It's like saying "I believe X, so I will stop believing X as X tells me that X is not true" and then "wait... wasn't X true?" and then repeating the process till you understand that you're better off acting like X is true for everything but itself.

7th and 8th paragraph: Still, I don't believe that the "waking life" is necessarily more consistent/continuous than the "dream life".

Oooh okay, gotcha. Sorry about that, I had to go with some presumption to see where you were going. I understand now.

9th, 10th and 11th paragraph: So, lucid dreams can be as continuous/consistent as real life? I agree then, but it depends of your perception of waking and dreaming reality.

I agree, it's all about your perception.

12th paragraph: You have quite severe existential problems apparently. Though I suggest you to believe provisionally the "necessary" truth of science, you know, because science is the thing that makes more sense of the basket of things that don't make any metaphysical sense.

I think I have a bit more problems than that, lately I've been mixing up so many concepts at once that it's hard to find the backup to what I believed before indulging into lucid dreaming and beyond dreaming concepts.

I'm actually surprised I'm still sane right now honestly. XD

13th paragraph: I agree with that, being close-minded may prevent you from entering a sect, but a "developed" reason will do the same plus won't prevent you from experiencing good things like lucid dreaming.

I agree with the developed reason, but what I meant by close-minded is when a person goes a bit too far and doesn't try to balance things out. A good and intelligent reason built upon personal experience definitely is a benefit, as long as one can still get their feet in the waters and not become too emotionally attached to that developed reason. Even if the reason itself is scientific to that person, the person's emotional reaction to it definitely isn't, in my opinion.

14th paragraph: That's just the result of having a lot of confusing feelings together, you should have noticed that since you're now agnostic your mind is an anarchy (though that's not the only way, personally my mind is a police state and we probably don't differ too much in our philosophical positions).

My mind definitely is an anarchy, but not completely. I used to be emotionally bound to certain things I did in life (trying to make decent friends, learning how to be sociable etc.), but I wouldn't say my mind is totally anarchy. I just focus more and having a clear mindset, and not letting anxiety and other negative emotions bring me down.

I like to think of it as being able to analyze my situation first before I panic, because the panicking itself creates the confusing feelings. The agnostic mentality is really the only practical label I can give myself, but other than that, I wouldn't say that I have complete absence of freedom or authority, because if that were the case, I'd be so paranoid, a pin dropping on a floor would make me pass out.

Honestly, I just cherry pick the concepts, kind of like taking the mistletoe concept of Christmas and kissing anyone under me (hopefully a female ), but not really focusing too much on people's perception with the Christian God and Jesus.

15th and 16th paragraph: Still, science is a "necessary" truth, it doesn't have to be true, but as I said before, when nothing makes metaphysical sense, science is the non-metaphysical truest thing of all. So, I don't think is a good idea to see lucid dreaming unscientifically, though is a great idea to experience lucid dreaming that way I think.

17th paragraph: So, first you'll explore the unknown, then you'll rationalize it, great idea, though I prefer to set up my rational basis first and then start processing any rational/emotional/spiritual input I get from lucid dreams.

I agree that science is "necessary", but the thing is that I wanted to express is understanding the concepts "unscientifically" first, like understanding the presumptions of whatever concept that isn't practically defined. (Example: Astral projection.....even though I'm skeptical about it, if I wanted to understand what people are hyped up about it, I would try to research the concepts that build that hype, which then allows me to make a presumptive way of thinking....then if I experiment with it a bit (and I mean going hard as nails with the anecdotes and presumed techniques about it), then after a while, I would attempt to make my own scientific conclusion.

Of course, it doesn't mean I would stop there, the experience itself would just be added on to my overall perspective of dreaming life, waking life and other "lives" people presume there is.

18th paragraph: However, no mental blocks = anarchy. And anarchy doesn't exists, it just means that there are many powers fighting together for control, understanding more things and destroying mind blocks is a great idea if you want to do some mental cleanup, but is a terrible idea to live with that.

I agree that you can't possibly destroy all mind blocks, it's practically impossible, especially when I see the unconscious as this grand sea. It'd be impossible to go after each particle of water that represents a conditioned response in this life.

I just wanted to mention about temporarily disregarding the block, or changing how that same mental block reacts to a situation.

You want to experience everything you get from lucid dreams in an anarchic way? That's fine, the problem is that the emotional and pseudo-rational input overload may even let you rationally-impaired for quite a lot of time.

It's just one way of thinking that seems favorable to me, BUT I know that doing it in an "anarchic way" will often leave me discouraged to explore anything. The thing is, I know I can't be completely in control of everything in my mind, the subconscious is going to have some authority of course, and I honestly would prefer the subconscious guiding me, so I can see how it actually associates whatever concept I'm trying to learn or recall again.

I honestly want to experience lucid dreams where I get this simulation of being an adventure that isn't able to be aware of everything that will come at him. Honestly, only few of my lucids have been close to being a "god," but I woke up quickly because of the exhilaration.

Now I'm focusing on just being calm in a dream, not assuming too much authority that I am capable of doing this or that; the idea of only going for complete control seems boring since I want to use dreams as something productive I can use for waking life.

The god mode is fun, but it's more for novelty rather than spamming it each night in my opinion.

Most things that seem extremely complex in an emotional way, in a rational way are just... emotions, maybe you aren't discovering anything new, maybe you're just having quite a lot of powerful emotions that are leading you to... well... nowhere but the unknown and to metaphysical uncertainty.

I actually agree with this to some extent, but here's an example of how emotions can often be a stepping stone towards certainty (or at least one of more understanding and assurance):

Example (and this actually happened a few times for me):

When I try to shoot someone in the dream, it ever fires. No matter how much effort I exert into pulling the trigger, I either have crappy aim or it just doesn't shoot. But when I'm with a dream character that is just as aware as I am in the dream, a manifestation of my subconscious that's actually more practical than the bland and derpy-faced dream characters.....

If that person gets injured, and I couldn't do anything about it...obviously the right emotion based on understanding the experience of what it feels like to lose someone that actually makes sense in my dreams causes me suddenly have the ability to kill the person who injured them.

So, I suggest you to start searching for a new rational basis to process all the input you're getting from lucid dreaming, if you feel uncertain, it's probably because you haven't searched enough.

19th paragraph: Another metaphysical problem you'll have to solve.

Exactly, I agree, I'm actually trying to get a new rational basis by the day, because I know the endeavors I'm trying to experiment now definitely needs something I can hold on to just in case tings get too hectic for me.

20th paragraph: I agree, it's extremely hard to have a proper rational discussion, my trick is to be hyper-analytical, preferently using formal logic.

Of course, you can never be too careful.

21th and 22th paragraph: Yes, thinking like that creates a lot of mental blocks. That's why I have quite a "strong" philosophical basis and that I use to reconstruct everything above them from time to time.

Yes, I definitely need to make a strong foundation again. I had this concept of having a room base that would connect to other "realms" of my consciousness, and if anything messes up, I would have some safety mechanism to transfer myself to that base/foundation again.

It's kind of like opening a random door and seeing a three headed dragon playing chess with Richard Simmons, I definitely would want to close that door before something else gets weird.

23th paragraph: That's not a novel! That's a thesis! This too!



P.S: Thanks for replying before too! You've set my personal record of "longest reply ever received for the shortest comment ever written"

I apologize for the presumptions I had when you stated about continuity, but I'm glad you took the time to explain it all, I understand what you mean, and I feel our ways of thinking are similar to some extent (but your foundation is definitely stronger than mine since I've been a bit too loose with the abstract....like really loose).

Thanks for responding!

Well, thanks too for replying me!

I would like to extend this exchange of ideas but I don't think there's too much juice left in this delicious, delicious philosophical orange...

Wait, there is! I could give you the cornerstone of my philosophical foundation!

However, I prefer you to guess it, instead of using the correct word, you'll have to guess it, I'll label it X, this is the first piece of the puzzle, don't tell me in your reply your answer, send it to me by a personal message:



What's the only thing that keeps you alive? What's the only thing that guides your actions? I'll tell you what, is X.

Why? Think why you do everything you do, maybe at first it may seem that is for reasons like "because otherwise I would fail my exams/lose my job", "because I'd like to impress my schoolmates/co-workers", "because it is the right thing to do" etc.

But at its last instance is because of X. If you do anything that makes you less X, you'll sooner or later stop doing it, unless you had a strong willpower (that is ultimately dependant on that X) or that that anything isn't actually making you less X but more X actually.



Try to solve it, is not necessary to make a reply to that argument, just try to guess what "X" is (and send me the answer by a personal message not in a reply), I'll give you the rest of the pieces of the puzzle later.

Goodbye! And enjoy your thinking!

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Death is the end of human life-supporting biological activity, particularly the activity in our brains. Now, unless you have some really good reason to show that we live on after our "shells" end, I would love to see it. Good sir.

<BR><BR>Please define "live".<BR>Is it the same as "existing"?<BR>

Please define "live".
Is it the same as "exist"?

Fugue. Why is this in religion and spirituality?

Originally Posted by sloth

<BR><BR>Please define "live".<BR>Is it the same as "existing"?<BR>

Please define "live".
Is it the same as "exist"?

In this context, I'm using "live" to mean a living creature that still maintains the biological activity necessary to not be dead. If you maintain those qualities you are "alive/living."

It can be taken to be the same as exist, but you exist after you're dead too, except it's as if you're switched off with no way to turn back on. There is a caveat here as well: after a certain point, there is no way for you to actually exist as your body decomposes.

I reject the notion of the soul or some sort of cranial continuity after death, and will continue to unless medical technology reaches a point where, if a body is preserved, it can be "turned back on." Mind you, even if medical technology does reach that point, they are not "living on" after death. The argument just changes to "they might be revived in the future. But they're not alive right now."

^ and if technology does reach that level, after passing the point of brain death and then being 'revived', would the person still be the same? Would there be a continuity of memory, or personality? They might essentially 'come back to life' as a totally different person inhabiting that body. Weird stuff to think about.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

^ and if technology does reach that level, after passing the point of brain death and then being 'revived', would the person still be the same? Would there be a continuity of memory, or personality? They might essentially 'come back to life' as a totally different person inhabiting that body. Weird stuff to think about.

I imagine that's where preservation techniques come into play.

Being an agnostic, I don't believe that religion or dreaming of any sort has any connection at all. Dreaming, especially lucid dreaming, is all to do with the brain. Religious people may believe that God created all of our brains, but that's irrelevant, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Alikat2077

Being an agnostic, I don't believe that religion or dreaming of any sort has any connection at all. Dreaming, especially lucid dreaming, is all to do with the brain. Religious people may believe that God created all of our brains, but that's irrelevant, isn't it?

I agree. Well me being a Christian I see dreams as a way God has chosen to talk to people in the past. That doesn't make all dreams spiritual, LDs either. God has used fire many times and lightning. So if dreams are "spiritual" because Goad has used them, then so is fire and lightning. Dreams are in the brain. Nothing crazy, LDing is being able to realize you are dreaming, which activates your frontal lobe (correct me if i am wrong on this part. ). All scientific. I don't seeit as anything but a use full scientific breakthrough that all people can do this. Not a "spiritual" one.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I imagine that's where preservation techniques come into play.

Oh, I thought you were talking about reviving someone after dying, not keeping them alive. My comment was specifically about after brain death has occurred.

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

In respose to your reply on the Aethism and Lucid Dreaming Thread:


- Sustained Learning
-Motivation
-Intuition
-Solipsism
-Integrity
-

Beats me lol.

And I though that it was too easy!

Originally Posted by Miguelinileugim

What's the only thing that keeps you alive? What's the only thing that guides your actions? I'll tell you what, is X.

Why? Think why you do everything you do, maybe at first it may seem that is for reasons like "because otherwise I would fail my exams/lose my job", "because I'd like to impress my schoolmates/co-workers", "because it is the right thing to do" etc.

But at its last instance is because of X. If you do anything that makes you less X, you'll sooner or later stop doing it, unless you had a strong willpower (that is ultimately dependant on that X) or that that anything isn't actually making you less X but more X actually.

Here's the second piece of the puzzle:


Many people say that they live for others, others say that they live for themselves, but for what? Not many of them actually live for their X, and most of them don't take it seriously anyway.

They live for money, they live for power, they live to get the approval of others, they don't care about the meaning of their existence, if there's any, they just do what others expect them to do.

Your aspirations are almost surely the same as the expectations of your close ones, if your close ones are intellectuals, you probably crave knowledge, if your close ones are businessmen, you probably crave money, if your close ones are political activists, you probably crave for the wellbeing of others.

And my question is, why? Why you should aspire to do what others expect of you? Isn't there a more important thing to care about? Something that will give meaning and direction to your life beyond the mere approval of your peers?

Yes, there is, it is X.



Sorry if this sounded too "mystical", the answer is plain simple actually, I just wanted to keep you enough interested so Paris won't burn when I tell you what X is, and the implications of only having X as an objective in life.

P.S: Guess again! But send your answer to me by personal message, just in case you guess it correctly

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Oh, I thought you were talking about reviving someone after dying, not keeping them alive. My comment was specifically about after brain death has occurred.

No, I meant keeping the body intact after death so that revival is possible later.

Hmmm.. are memory and personality hard coded into brain structure then? If not, then following a certain period of brain death I'd imagine that person's memories would be wiped clear - a full reformat so to speak. Possibly personality traits too? Though I suspect some personality traits are linked to physical conditions of the body.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

^ and if technology does reach that level, after passing the point of brain death and then being 'revived', would the person still be the same? Would there be a continuity of memory, or personality? They might essentially 'come back to life' as a totally different person inhabiting that body. Weird stuff to think about.

Your question could be revived if talking about someone that has suffered brain trauma or a disease that effects the brain. What parts of the brain do we normally attribute to the soul (considering it exists).

Yeah, I guess it all depends on what type of technology we're talking about and how it preserves the body. If it's a way of keeping oxygenated blood circulating then that would keep brain damage from setting in - but would the person actually be dead then? Or more like in a coma?

On the other hand, if we're talking about technology that somehow freezes the body without killing it (doesn't seem possible though) or some kind of force field stasis beam thing that completely stops all molecular and atomic action - I don't know. Since such technology doesn't seem like it could ever be possible it's hard to imagine how it would work; what effect it would have on the brain or body. But I suppose if it could literally nullify the effects of time (some sort of nulltime container) then it would be equivalent to no time passing for that person - so no brain damage. Not sure that would qualify as being dead either though - more like suspended animation. So it seems any of these science fictiony scenarios is actually more like keeping it alive rather than reviving it after death.

Yeah, the problem with reviving after death is decay.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

In this context, I'm using "live" to mean a living creature that still maintains the biological activity necessary to not be dead. If you maintain those qualities you are "alive/living."

It can be taken to be the same as exist, but you exist after you're dead too, except it's as if you're switched off with no way to turn back on. There is a caveat here as well: after a certain point, there is no way for you to actually exist as your body decomposes.

I reject the notion of the soul or some sort of cranial continuity after death, and will continue to unless medical technology reaches a point where, if a body is preserved, it can be "turned back on." Mind you, even if medical technology does reach that point, they are not "living on" after death. The argument just changes to "they might be revived in the future. But they're not alive right now."

So when you say the word "you", what are you referring to?
Also, at what point does one no longer exist? You have stated that "you exist after you're dead" which does appear to be true, as people have been brought back to life, as long as the body is preserved, and luck is on their side.
So, at what point does one no longer exist? Is it at the point that the body can no longer be revived?
Or is it at the point that the body begins to decompose?
Or is it at some point during decomposition?
Or after that?

Originally Posted by sloth

So when you say the word "you", what are you referring to?
Also, at what point does one no longer exist? You have stated that "you exist after you're dead" which does appear to be true, as people have been brought back to life, as long as the body is preserved, and luck is on their side.
So, at what point does one no longer exist? Is it at the point that the body can no longer be revived?
Or is it at the point that the body begins to decompose?
Or is it at some point during decomposition?
Or after that?

I don't know about him, but after the blood in the brain stops working.

Wiki has death as the permanent cessation of all biological functions. Which would mean if they could be revived they wouldn't have actually been dead. If you can trust wiki.

In my question, I did not mention death.

Do you believe that we cease to exist "after the blood to the brain stops working"?
If so, then I must ask you if you believe in the existence of sponges.

We are humans. I think life ending would be different for each species. A lot are close to ours and I would consider death the same for those though. Sponge, though living, is a lot different.