Life After Death

[Tsuyoiko]

@ Pachipro - thanks for the link. So far - and I've only read a small amount - there is some that makes partial sense to me. I don't think the idea of a universal consciousness is contradictory to science. I can envisage the possibility that our minds are connected in some way that hasn't yet been discovered. I've had experiences of my own that suggest as much. I also believe in a form of karma - I think that every action we take changes us, and that we should keep it in mind every time we make a decision. And what changes us changes everyone around us, if only in a small way. So I think a seemingly unimportant action could have far-reaching consequences. This is an area in which science is only just starting to make progress - chaos theory. I'll come back to this link when I have more time.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I've been giving this topic a lot of thought - plus I'm reading 2001 - and something just occurred to me that seems so obvious I can't believe I didn't think of it before. Still sticking by everything I have said before, I can now see a scenario in which life after death might be possible - although we don't have the necessary technology yet. Assume that everything we are is stored in our brains - which I firmly believe. Isn't it possible that that information could be copied or transferred to a different format that could survive the death of our physical bodies? Providing our consciousness could survive the process, that would equate to life after death wouldn't it? Does anyone see any objections?

 

[Void]

forgive me for being rude, but why you think that life after death (if there is any) must include all the single memories of yours and character traits? Real 'you' it`s not the one who likes the bear and tend to be right- or left-winged... imagine the case of severe amnesia... without return what is real you then?

And, science just opened some doors a bit (some and very few of them), if there is smth such as soul, sooner or later means of measuring its phenomena (whatever it is, current, charge, smth else) will be created. If thereis no any soul, then there is no need to die to discover it

Besides, if you look deep into your subconscious without shoving it away in intellectual embarassement and chauvinism you`ll find out screaming piece of living being eagering for eternal life, terrified by death :evil:

 

[Tsuyoiko]

forgive me for being rude, but why you think that life after death (if there is any) must include all the single memories of yours and character traits? Real 'you' it`s not the one who likes the bear and tend to be right- or left-winged... imagine the case of severe amnesia... without return what is real you then?

So what constitutes the 'real Void'?

And, science just opened some doors a bit (some and very few of them)

I agree, as I said in post#39

In comparison to what we still have to learn, we are just scratching the surface.

But I still maintain that the scientific method is the best way to discover what's out there.

Besides, if you look deep into your subconscious without shoving it away in intellectual embarassement and chauvinism you`ll find out screaming piece of living being eagering for eternal life, terrified by death :evil:

I don't think I said I shove away my subconscious, just that I don't trust it if it is contrary to my reason. IMO, the subconscious is where our instincts reside, and as humans we don't have to be a slave to instinct. But I have reached the conclusions I have partly through a great deal of introspection. I think chauvinism is a strong word to use. I have never claimed that my understanding is superior, and I've tried to explain my stance in as detailed a way as possible. And I freely admit that I'm terrified of death - all the more because I am convinced that it will be the end.

 

[Doc]

I personally believe that there is the possibility in life after death. I also believe in the possibility of reincarnation, spirituality, and even ghosts. I also feel that there are some things science will never be able to explain and probably shouldn't anyway, and bashing your head in because the scientific method doesn't apply is rather silly. However, since the topic does not have the options that I want to choose in my believe in life after death, I am not going to delve into the topic anymore than I already have. I wish the best of luck with everybody else and their agruments on the issue, and want to say keep up the good work for making this thread enjoying to read and thought provoking at the same time.

Doc :wave:

 

[Mars Man]

... imagine the case of severe amnesia... without return what is real you then?
Some good questions there Void. I would say that arguably, the former self would be deemed the real person in that case. I would stand with Tsuyoiko on this one; by far most works I've come across by neuroscientists and psychologists put the self firstly in the memory banks--explicit, long-term. Of course it would surely include other factors such as the hormonal content and tendencies, basal ganglia operation, and up-to-that-point learned firing patterns/networks, etc.

The movie Memento in which a man who has lost his short-term (or working) memory, was said to have been inspired by one HM. (Scientific American Feb. 2005, Making Memories Stick pp 58-65) At the age of nine, a head injury sustained in a bicycle accident left him with defilitating epilepsy. The only way to relieve his seizures was to remove part of his hippocampus and adjoining brain regions. Surgery succeeded in reducing the brain seizures but inadvertently severed the mysterious link between short-term and long-term memory--causing information destined for what is known as declarative memory (people, places, events) to not be able to reach its final resting place in the cortex, for long-term memory. Each time he saw the doctor, which was on a monthly basis for some time, it was like meeting a new person. I would say that the real person had ceased to be after that accident, only if in the fact that his long-term memory never grew with his mental experience from that point onward. (and there are others)

I would still stand for trying to get a better grasp on what this 'consciousness' would entail--without, of course, going too deeply into philosophical treatsies. If the regions of my brain were damaged to the degree that I could not know what I had understood and known of myself up to the point in time of that damage, the 'I' up until then would have already died to that degree, I'd reason. I don't see how, at the moment, we could say for sure that full prior consciousness would still be intact and operating inside my head, but only unseeable or undetectable to those on the outside. But I'm still searching and looking. Also, I'll check out that site Pachipro san.

 

[Void]

So what constitutes the 'real Void'?

i`ll leave it to myself, not the public :souka:

IMO, the subconscious is where our instincts reside, and as humans we don't have to be a slave to instinct.

instincts rather belong to un-conscious, smth you don`t have to think about and reflect. Besides, humans are the only animals which can bypass most of the instincts (and even go against the most strong ones like self-preservation instinct). But it`s so difficult for us to deal with emotions, for ex
Subcounscious is different level of our being. There are different points in psychology on this matter (psychology, Mars Man-sama, not philosophy, though somewhere they do overlap =) ). Some call it the "vault" of consciousness, some say it`s such "subdivision" which contains "unshaped" and "wordless" entities, others claim that there is no sharp line:
consciousness is reflexive, subconsciousness - areflexive forms of counsciousness in general (or as it)
(i really doubt what word to use in english: reflexive or reflective, since it sounds and written the same way in Russian)

 

[Void]

I think chauvinism is a strong word to use.

not at all. The problem of many people that they are afraid to look bad in other people`s eyes, and they think that critiscism deals with their attitude toward others. No, Tsuyoiko, you are being intellectually chauvinistic toward other parts of your multifaceted Self

 

[Frank D. White]

Me Too !!!

I can come back as a pampered cat.

I want to return to life as a cat with an owner like I am. Sleep all day, eat when hungry; be petted and played with everyday. Get to hear "I love you" A hundred times a day. What a life !

Uncle Frank

 

[Tsuyoiko]

instincts rather belong to un-conscious, smth you don`t have to think about and reflect. Besides, humans are the only animals which can bypass most of the instincts (and even go against the most strong ones like self-preservation instinct). But it`s so difficult for us to deal with emotions, for ex
Subcounscious is different level of our being.

I'm not convinced of the distinction (Freud was a charlatan, IMO) but that's a whole other discussion:relief:

not at all. The problem of many people that they are afraid to look bad in other people`s eyes, and they think that critiscism deals with their attitude toward others. No, Tsuyoiko, you are being intellectually chauvinistic toward other parts of your multifaceted Self

I'm afraid of being misunderstood, because that implies that I haven't argued well and that I've failed to put my point across.

You may call it intellectual chauvinism - I call it self-awareness, self-examination and common sense. My subconsious has its place - it reveals to me the inner workings of my mind, my hidden motivations and desires and it's a useful tool for self-understanding. But if I want to understand what's out there, then reason is the tool I use.

Anyway, that's just the approach I use. I wouldn't presume to tell anyone else how they should view the universe, or their own selves. Everyone has to find their own path.

 

[Mycernius]

I must look into more detail on what has been said on this thread, but for now my thougts.
I believe in ghosts, mainly because I saw one, or rather something that I cannot explain. Whether they are remains, an after image if you will, of a person, or an actually part of someones soul I cannot say. I do not, though, have a great belief in mediums, especially the media ones. Conmen and very good at reading people IMHO. I didn't vote for anything else because I won't know until I die. The best thing I ever heard from someone about life after death was a guy I used to work with. He believed that when he died he could then roam free in the universe seeing everyting else that we can only imagine being stuck on one planet. Really beautiful I thought.
I do think one very important question has been overlooked and was post No. 14 by USFI

where is our "soul" before our birth? Does it exist, or is the soul "born" into existance when we are conceived? Does the brain have to develop for a "soul" to exist? Maybe our souls sit on a shelf or in a box till we have a body to put it in? Do bugs, fish, other mammals, germs, etc. have a soul? Lots of "soulful" thinking can go into this topic!

If you are a Hindu you believe everything has a soul. It's ultimate goal to achive nirvana. But for all those of Islamic, Jewish and Christian beliefs, Do animals have a soul? And where is it before we are born? Philip K. Dick short story, The Pre-persons, raises some very interesting points that cover abortion, souls and what is intelligence.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I can't believe in heaven/hell because I am quite certain from my learning in neurosciences, psychology and biochemistry that life is nothing more than a biochemical process, and life beings don't have an eternal, immaterial soul. There is no need for it as memory, emotions, personality and conscience can all be explained in neurosciences (if you don't think so, study more, as I have). They can even be altered by electric impulses, injections of chemicals (hormones, neurotransmitters...) or brain operations (lobotomy, neuron implant, etc.).

Say 10 years ago, maybe less, before I had read very much about science in general, and neuroscience in particular, I thought scientists were arrogant, and that they claimed to know more than they actually did. But for anyone interested enough in these subjects to do some reading, I think it would be hard not to be convinced by the evidence of neuroscience. I've yet to hear from anyone who has read a lot on these subjects and still believes in a soul - but if you are out there, I would be very interested to hear why you are not convinced by the scientific evidence.

 

[Kama]

If you are a Hindu you believe everything has a soul. It's ultimate goal to achive nirvana. But for all those of Islamic, Jewish and Christian beliefs, Do animals have a soul? And where is it before we are born? Philip K. Dick short story, The Pre-persons, raises some very interesting points that cover abortion, souls and what is intelligence.

As it was explained to me in an elementary school animals in Christianity don't have souls. Because of this in Polish when saying "human died" and "animal died" two different words are used. Also, because most people think (are taught to think like this?) cementeries for animals are rarity.

I do not blindly believe in science. Stephen Hawking last year, if I remmbered correctly, said aloud that he made a mistake 20 years and the reality looked different from what he thought. He is an authority, yes? He is scientist, yes? For me this proves science is just a tool for human, just like parapsychology. I think that using only one method of discovering the world is wrong. Also, not all methods are good for everything. Just like in human sciences, like sociology/psychology/etnography etc. you could ask closed/open questions (closed = choosing a, b, c, d... open = answering questions yourself). Sometimes closed questions are better, sometimes open works better. And sometimes you use a mix of these when asking one person.

I believe in my reality, in my experience. Different people have different lives, experiences, thoughts. There can be some similarites but after all everyone is unique. What I have experienced was true. I KNOW IT. I don't need scientifical experience to prove it. But of course, I am always eager to listen to other people's stories/views and I don't say that only me is right.

 

[Kama]

Say 10 years ago, maybe less, before I had read very much about science in general, and neuroscience in particular, I thought scientists were arrogant, and that they claimed to know more than they actually did. But for anyone interested enough in these subjects to do some reading, I think it would be hard n ot to be convinced by the evidence of neuroscience. I've yet to hear from anyone who has read a lot on these subjects and still believes in a soul - but if you are out there, I would be very interested to hear why you are not convinced by the scientific evidence.

Well, I haven't read that much... but... I as a person don't want to be just a collection of organic substances, chemical process.

I wouldn't like to have my body made into soap etc. after I die just because...well...a corpse is really...nothing...just a source...

Well, i believe that mind is capable of making incapable things...But did anyone explained why people only use 3-10% (depending on the scientist) mind's capabilities? Why all the 90% is unused? Isn't that too much of a waste? If it is not wasted, then what else is using the rest?

 

[Mycernius]

As it was explained to me in an elementary school animals in Christianity don't have souls. Because of this in Polish when saying "human died" and "animal died" two different words are used. Also, because most people think (are taught to think like this?) cementeries for animals are rarity.

Why not? Is it down to intelligence or something else? Just because we have the capacity to grasp abstract ideas means that we get an afterlife. The great apes have shown a basic grasp in abstract ideas. They can recognise themselves in a mirror, which means that they have an idea of self. There are severly disabled people who cannot do this. Does this mean that they have no soul and do not have an afterlife to look forward to?. Where do you draw the line between animals, especially the great apes, and humans when it come to life after death?

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Well, i believe that mind is capable of making incapable things...But did anyone explained why people only use 3-10% (depending on the scientist) mind's capabilities? Why all the 90% is unused? Isn't that too much of a waste? If it is not wasted, then what else is using the rest?

This is just a myth. It may have arisen when we didn't have such a good understanding of the brain. Or it may come from the fact that only about 10% of neurons are firing at any one time. Although there is a still a lot that neuroscience has to learn, scientists pretty much know the function of every area of the brain:

occipital lobe: yellow
parietal lobe: orange
frontal lobe: red
temporal lobe: green
brain stem: black
cerebellum: blue

The science writer Rita Carter has likened our current knowledge of the brain to a sixteenth century map of the world - that was in 1998 though, so by now it is probably more (I'm guessing like a seventeenth century map?) - the outlines of all the main areas are known, we have a detailed knowledge of the interiors of some areas, and an overview of the rest. But IMO, any discoveries are going to add to what we know, not disprove what we already understand about the brain.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Why not? Is it down to intelligence or something else? Just because we have the capacity to grasp abstract ideas means that we get an afterlife. The great apes have shown a basic grasp in abstract ideas. They can recognise themselves in a mirror, which means that they have an idea of self. There are severly disabled people who cannot do this. Does this mean that they have no soul and do not have an afterlife to look forward to?. Where do you draw the line between animals, especially the great apes, and humans when it come to life after death?

Wild Minds by Marc Hauser is a really good book about just how much animal minds can do. It's a lot more than we are led to believe - even some monkeys can recognise themselves in a mirror, and pigeons can count!

 

[Duo]

My friend and I were talkin about this yesterday by chance and we were both getting scared at the idea that after death you just stop existing. Personally, I think the latter is the more plausible option to beleive... although I will grant that I don't think we as humans can quite understand the world as it really is. Sort of the the cave story that Plato uses.

 

[Pachipro]

Still sticking by everything I have said before, I can now see a scenario in which life after death might be possible - although we don't have the necessary technology yet. Assume that everything we are is stored in our brains - which I firmly believe. Isn't it possible that that information could be copied or transferred to a different format that could survive the death of our physical bodies? Providing our consciousness could survive the process, that would equate to life after death wouldn't it? Does anyone see any objections?

But we DO have the necessary technology! Believe it or not some scientists are working on this at this very moment. They are seriously studying the possibility of "downloading" the info in your brain and then "uploading" it again into a cloned body or computer. Weird, but true and they say it is possible. After all what is the human brain but a really complex computer.

You started me on a search that led to some fascinating websites and a company that is doing this same thing. Check out the company called Braintec here. I think you will find this as fascinating as I did. And to answer your question, it's not only possible, but is being done! And it kind of scares me in a way.

However, IMO I don't think this would constitute life after death. I hope I can be articulate here, but I believe that if this were possible it would still not constitute "you". Sure it could have all your memories and experiences and may even look like you, but there would be no, for lack of a better word, soul. By soul I mean the person/energy/conciousness that is the real you residing in the brain. Would it be able to think as you did with your morals and beliefs or would it just be a "mindless" computer set on autopilot? Or would it just be a "vacant" container awaiting a soul/conciousness to inhabit it that may, or may not, be 'you'? Sure makes one think.

Anybody volunteering to click the link on the bottom of the Braintec page to become a test subject?

 

[Pachipro]

I do think one very important question has been overlooked and was post No. 14 by USFI

Quote:
where is our "soul" before our birth? Does it exist, or is the soul "born" into existance when we are conceived? Does the brain have to develop for a "soul" to exist? Maybe our souls sit on a shelf or in a box till we have a body to put it in? Do bugs, fish, other mammals, germs, etc. have a soul? Lots of "soulful" thinking can go into this topic!

Good point. Sorry I didn't notice this before. This may seem "way out there' to some, but I do not claim to believe in it one way or the other as there is no way to prove or disprove it. I am just relaying what I have read from several sources.

From all the paranormal literature I have read, it is said that the soul does exist on a higher vibrational plane. Before being "born" the soul selects, with guidance from higher souls, it's life, parents, and country of birth based on previous lives and 'karma' and only enters the body at the moment of actual birth. There is a time limit, like several weeks, when the soul can "change it's mind" and exit the body. It is said that this may very well explain the phenomena of "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) in an otherwise healthy baby. After the time limit, the only other way to exit the body is through death.