The Proof of What Happens To Us After Death and the Subsequent denial of it.

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: Entreri06

The fore head chakra is not the mystical psychic power third eye you are referring to. That's like saying the Native American sun symbol is a nazi swastika. When thy look the same but have totally separate meanings.

When one turns the attention to the internal energy of the body-brain-mind upwards, and concentrates it in the core of the brain, that is the position of the 3rd eye also known as the ajna chakra. This is where the subtle mind is. This is the gateway to various visions of subtle worlds, etc.

So what is your experience - or at least understanding of this process?

That there is no process, that human imagination and Psychology is an amazing computer, that can cause you to be sick or to be healed (placebo effect). All the chemicals to kill you or heal you are already inside of us. Pharms only trick you into releasing the right amount at the right time.


If mysticism were true (past psychology) then after thousands of years of searching we would have more evidence then what we have. Science took us to the moon in less then a century of belief. What did 100k years of religion and mysticism get us? Wars, atrocities, slavery with a pinch of charity mixed in...

But really we are discussing if the soul and body are separate and independent. Not if we might find more mental control over our bodies.

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: Entreri06
But the physical part can be proven, studied, predictions made and every other thing that anyone would consider proof. While there is no actual evidence for ANYTHING metaphysical at all in the first place.

That's like claiming the water is red in changrala (the mystical Chinese city I'm sure I slaughtered the spelling). Then saying we can't prove the water isn't red in changrala . when we have no reason to believe there is a changrala in the first place.......

As I said, it is only the self-evident truth that ultimately avails. You can only discover this - nothing else, no amount of logic will completely convince me one way or another. Even if there were all the scientific proof one could imagine for the existence of the subtle worlds, or life force, etc., it would not make one iota of a difference in terms of the weight the self-evident truth carries relative to our being consciousness beyond the body-mind.

But at least it would stop all this arguing about it, so I guess that is one difference it would make!

So basically you prefer to think there is more so no amount of logic or science will convince you otherwise??? How very Christian of you! :p

originally posted by: Entreri06
So basically you prefer to think there is more so no amount of logic or science will convince you otherwise??? How very Christian of you! :p

It is not a matter of thinking, believing, doubting, etc. It is self-evident to me for many reasons that we exist beyond physical death. If you ask me on what basis, I have already written many posts pertaining to these matters, you are free to review those prior posts.

No science is going to be able to prove this one way or another. It is all based on the wrongful assumption that we ARE the body-mind rather than simply being mistakenly identified with it through the mechanism of attention, and all of its complex patterning.

This thread is pure gold! I got completely drawn in to this one and have been reading it throughout the day.

I think what we are running into here is the limits of philosophy and logic when we are beginning to realize just how little scientific facts we know.

Philosophy logic etc was developed before science. It was the work of the most learned men at the time. All of these learned men at the time thought that they were aware of all the factual knowledge in the world.

Along comes science and now we are a little wiser and have come to realize we are just perched on one tiny little beach on the edge of vast oceans of knowledge. Such knowledge can only brought to light through science and nothing else. No amount of verbal prowess can unlock this knowledge. So it is silly to use verbal tools and thought experiments to try to convince ourselves one way or the other about life after death of all things.

Let's then have a little less talk and a lot more actual scientific progress.

Hit the books, my fellow ATSr's, so hungry for true knowledge. Start with math then move on to some specific realm of scientific speculation. Then hit the lab or the field or what have you. After about a decade of that THEN tell us what you think.

How is the ability to think not "action reaction? You try and think of something (action)…

a reply to: Entreri06

I'm sorry for not being able to express myself clearly. The thing that you state so casually "… and think of something" is exactly my point. The human ability to think of something at will should not be possible in a world only governed by atoms, because there is no "prime cause" for that thought to occur.

Yes, neurons need to fire, but WHAT triggers those events? Are you saying that thoughts are just random events generated by the neurons themselves, or is there a "governor" in the system?

To answer your other question: There are plenty of clinical examples where a patient is brain dead with no electrical activity in the brain (no neurons are able to fire), but after she recovers there are vivid memories related to that time with zero brain activity.

originally posted by: olddognewtricks
This thread is pure gold! I got completely drawn in to this one and have been reading it throughout the day.

I think what we are running into here is the limits of philosophy and logic when we are beginning to realize just how little scientific facts we know.

Philosophy logic etc was developed before science. It was the work of the most learned men at the time. All of these learned men at the time thought that they were aware of all the factual knowledge in the world.

Along comes science and now we are a little wiser and have come to realize we are just perched on one tiny little beach on the edge of vast oceans of knowledge. Such knowledge can only brought to light through science and nothing else. No amount of verbal prowess can unlock this knowledge. So it is silly to use verbal tools and thought experiments to try to convince ourselves one way or the other about life after death of all things.

Let's then have a little less talk and a lot more actual scientific progress.

Hit the books, my fellow ATSr's, so hungry for true knowledge. Start with math then move on to some specific realm of scientific speculation. Then hit the lab or the field or what have you. After about a decade of that THEN tell us what you think.

1 Corinthians 13

I love science, but there is more ;-)

… and if I have prophecy, and know all the secrets, and all the knowledge, and if I have all the faith, so as to remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing;

a reply to: AllIsOne

What I'm saying is that philosophy and logical arguments don't get us anywhere any more; science is too much of a stumbling block.

a reply to: AllIsOne

Maybe my question is beneath you and that's why you chose to ignore it … But how can you explain free will in the context of "we are just atoms"? Atoms are bound by causal laws, free will is not. That is a clear indication that there is more going on that just well organized atoms IMHO.

I do not believe we are "just atoms". Believe it or not, I do not like any purely objective, a view from nowhere, impersonal, mathematical explanations of life or the living. I believe in aggregates and objects, not the specks and pieces that fall off them. "Science" is good at presenting data, not providing the meaning to it. That's the work for poets (currently writing a thread on this very subject).

As for free will, we are unable to choose to have free will or not. That in itself is telling.

a reply to: olddognewtricks

What I'm saying is that philosophy and logical arguments don't get us anywhere any more; science is too much of a stumbling block.

Science is philosophy. What do you think PhD stands for?

Seems to me that those who are devout believers in the religion of science are just as hard-headed as those who believe in a higher being. People no longer seem to have the ability to say "what if?" Anymore and if you disagree with sciences you are a fool who must believe on the fairy tale of religion. (And, of course the same goes for those who renounce science and live on faith alone)

Just my 2cents, I have no interest in discussing my own beliefs because this is just a circular debate where no one will change anyone's mind anyway.

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: Entreri06
So basically you prefer to think there is more so no amount of logic or science will convince you otherwise??? How very Christian of you! :p

It is not a matter of thinking, believing, doubting, etc. It is self-evident to me for many reasons that we exist beyond physical death. If you ask me on what basis, I have already written many posts pertaining to these matters, you are free to review those prior posts.

No science is going to be able to prove this one way or another. It is all based on the wrongful assumption that we ARE the body-mind rather than simply being mistakenly identified with it through the mechanism of attention, and all of its complex patterning.

So I guess self evident is defined= because I think so??

Cause it definatly isn't because it's actually evident. Like it's self evident the sun is heating the earth. Because there actually is a sun...

originally posted by: Entreri06

This is from the encyclopedia brittanica, does it get more credible then that? Lol on the way Jews and early Christians viewed the soul. Which was completely connected to the body before and after death. It was centuries later before the concept of a heaven we go to after death would pop up.

Yes, I am aware of how the body-soul were considered "one unit" in the ancient Jewish tradition. However, the teachings of Jesus relative to the Kingdom of Heaven indicate he viewed matters similar to other traditions of mysticism - that the spirit that was born from above (reborn) would enter the kingdom of heaven. There is evidence that Jesus taught the same mysticism similar to that found in the East back then.

The concepts of heaven (subtle worlds) and the subtle body have been in existence far longer than that.

If you really had "devoured" everything on mysticism, this would be obvious.

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: Entreri06
So basically you prefer to think there is more so no amount of logic or science will convince you otherwise??? How very Christian of you! :p

It is not a matter of thinking, believing, doubting, etc. It is self-evident to me for many reasons that we exist beyond physical death. If you ask me on what basis, I have already written many posts pertaining to these matters, you are free to review those prior posts.

No science is going to be able to prove this one way or another. It is all based on the wrongful assumption that we ARE the body-mind rather than simply being mistakenly identified with it through the mechanism of attention, and all of its complex patterning.

So I guess self evident is defined= because I think so??

Cause it definatly isn't because it's actually evident. Like it's self evident the sun is heating the earth. Because there actually is a sun...

self-ev·i·dent
adjective
not needing to be demonstrated or explained; obvious.
"self-evident truths"
synonyms: obvious, clear, plain, evident, apparent, manifest, patent, axiomatic; More

originally posted by: Entreri06

So I guess self evident is defined= because I think so??

What is it that you did not understand about my last post? It is beyond mentality. It is neither conceptual or perceptual.

It is more obvious to me than the sun, to use your example.

originally posted by: Entreri06
Cause it definatly isn't because it's actually evident. Like it's self evident the sun is heating the earth. Because there actually is a sun...

So discover what you are doing that actively prevents its obviousness, and stop doing that.

"The need for proof"

Error number one. ^

Its a feeling, if one follows that feeling, ones inner world opens up, things come together.

one denies that feeling, continues to allow blockages and seek with the 5 senses until you are so tired...life after life.

you come around.

as well all do.

The Choice

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

"Zing!" Good one.

I am talking about hard rigorous science like what is done in a lab. You and I can discourse all day. We will get nowhere closer to an answer to anything about the world we live in. Somebody utilizing the scientific method every day in a lab, however, is another story. That person may not come up with all the answers in one go. But they will come up with something that will actually take us one step closer.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

What do you think PhD stands for?

Pink horses Dancing
Poor humpty Dumpty
Penis hits Door ... I am not sure ... what does PhD stand for ... Let me go agoogling


Ah! Doctor of Philosophy,

Pity it was not a real doctor or he could have helped poor Humpty

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: AllIsOne

Maybe my question is beneath you and that's why you chose to ignore it … But how can you explain free will in the context of "we are just atoms"? Atoms are bound by causal laws, free will is not. That is a clear indication that there is more going on that just well organized atoms IMHO.

I do not believe we are "just atoms". Believe it or not, I do not like any purely objective, a view from nowhere, impersonal, mathematical explanations of life or the living. I believe in aggregates and objects, not the specks and pieces that fall off them. "Science" is good at presenting data, not providing the meaning to it. That's the work for poets (currently writing a thread on this very subject).

As for free will, we are unable to choose to have free will or not. That in itself is telling.

Why is that telling? I believe free will and creativity go hand in hand. It IS life!

PS: Thanks for responding :-)

No no no,

Death is outside our perception limits. Exactly like there is no concept explanation for singularity (physics inside black holes) and even not explanation for "gravity" which strongly depends each other. Our science still lacks to explain the very fundamentals of our existence.

Even reality has no existence, because there is no proof for you that even the outside world exists. Everything you experience is just electronical neuronal activity inside your brain. Given stimulus through organs conntected to it. but the actual process of what your eyes is seeing is a picture produced by the brain. We will never even be close to grab anything what is "reality" by design.

The next physical dimension added to our 4D world is the self dimension. This means everything experienced "outside" is stongly influenced from the individual "inside".

"Science" is build around consensus between different individuals giving acceptance to test designs prooving a fundamental theory. The individual "self" is not a part of "science". Therefore discussing "death" (a 100% subjective experience) cannot be discussed with "science" because its missing the dimension. Its a singularity.

Find my a scientist explaining a black hole and I find you one explaining death.

originally posted by: olddognewtricks
a reply to: AllIsOne

What I'm saying is that philosophy and logical arguments don't get us anywhere any more; science is too much of a stumbling block.

Well, science got us to communicate via pixels on a computer. Ain't necessarily a bad thing … lol.