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

a reply to: booyakasha

Oh if you can out of body at will as you just claimed, it should be quite easy to pop on over here and describe the room I'm (or anyone else) is in. You won't, you'll make some lame excuse about ( fill in the blank).

originally posted by: Entreri06

Even if out of body stuff is possible (and if it were you would have people investing millions to profit off it) why would it survive death? Why would it survive when the thing causing conciousness is gone?

Again, you are making the presumption that science's statement about consciousness is that it is a self-emergent property of the body. Let's see some proof of this so-called fact!

One can actually notice that the body-mind exists in a vast field of (apparently) physical external events - and also one can notice inwardly that there are equally vast fields of subtle worlds that the higher mind can contact.

In Reality the inner (subtle) and outer (gross physical) worlds co-exist, and as a modification of consciousness (which is clearly NOT merely the waking state conscious mind).

Most of us here are locked into the lower mind and are constantly distracted by the physical world via the five senses. Some get inward and may experience some mystical states of ascent beyond the gross physical realm - similar to what happens when the gross body dies and the subtle "body-mind" moves on.

But none of this, high or low, realizes the actual Truth of our situation here. But it is interesting to consider as it might help people see there is actually more to this existence than meets the eye - and ears, and nose....

originally posted by: Entreri06
Dude if the only way your theory is true is if the entire worlds governments are in a vast conspiracy to hide it.. Then your theory has problems and maybe your the one who sounds like an "ignorant, misguided child"!

It isn't hidden. It has been practiced and written about for eons. Study some mysticism.

originally posted by: Entreri06

a reply to: booyakasha

Oh if you can out of body at will as you just claimed, it should be quite easy to pop on over here and describe the room I'm (or anyone else) is in. You won't, you'll make some lame excuse about ( fill in the blank).

As I just wrote, these two dimensions co-exist but usually do not co-mingle. One is external, the other internal.

However, when one begins to see that it is actually one cosmic event, then more co-mingling is possible because the brain-mind is not locking the door between the two worlds (gross and subtle).

That is when the whole world is truly understood to be a psycho-physical occurrence - not just a physical one, and then a natural kind of magic does emerge even in this so-called physical world.

Double post

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: Entreri06

Even if out of body stuff is possible (and if it were you would have people investing millions to profit off it) why would it survive death? Why would it survive when the thing causing conciousness is gone?

Again, you are making the presumption that science's statement about consciousness is that it is a self-emergent property of the body. Let's see some proof of this so-called fact!

One can actually notice that the body-mind exists in a vast field of (apparently) physical external events - and also one can notice inwardly that there are equally vast fields of subtle worlds that the higher mind can contact.

In Reality the inner (subtle) and outer (gross physical) worlds co-exist, and as a modification of consciousness (which is clearly NOT merely the waking state conscious mind).

Most of us here are locked into the lower mind and are constantly distracted by the physical world via the five senses. Some get inward and may experience some mystical states of ascent beyond the gross physical realm - similar to what happens when the gross body dies and the subtle "body-mind" moves on.

But none of this, high or low, realizes the actual Truth of our situation here. But it is interesting to consider as it might help people see there is actually more to this existence than meets the eye - and ears, and nose....

originally posted by: Entreri06
Dude if the only way your theory is true is if the entire worlds governments are in a vast conspiracy to hide it.. Then your theory has problems and maybe your the one who sounds like an "ignorant, misguided child"!

It isn't hidden. It has been practiced and written about for eons. Study some mysticism.

How about the fact that everything with a functional working human brain has a conciousness, while nothing without one does!
Let's see some proof of ANYTHING that is not based on the mortal body! Any proven ghost or supernatural event at all! Just one example?

So in all of human history, with a huge portion of the population looking for some proof of religion or spirituality, what proof do we have that there is ANYTHING outside of physics and quantum mechanics?

Just one testable verifyable case of anything related to religion or spirituality?

I can point to 7 billion humans with a brain and a conciousness, please show me just one example of a conciousness without a brain?

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: Entreri06

a reply to: booyakasha

Oh if you can out of body at will as you just claimed, it should be quite easy to pop on over here and describe the room I'm (or anyone else) is in. You won't, you'll make some lame excuse about ( fill in the blank).

As I just wrote, these two dimensions co-exist but usually do not co-mingle. One is external, the other internal.

However, when one begins to see that it is actually one cosmic event, then more co-mingling is possible because the brain-mind is not locking the door between the two worlds (gross and subtle).

That is when the whole world is truly understood to be a psycho-physical occurrence - not just a physical one, and then a natural kind of magic does emerge even in this so-called physical world.

You didn't claim to be able to out of body at will, as the poster I replied to did. So I'm not sure why you are making excuses for some one who claimed they could do "at will" what your theory says is a rarity.

originally posted by: Entreri06

You didn't claim to be able to out of body at will, as the poster I replied to did. So I'm not sure why you are making excuses for some one who claimed they could do "at will" what your theory says is a rarity.

Sure, many people have learned to do this - either via some meditative technique or through lucid dreaming or various substances. It is about manipulating attention and energy inwardly.

All I said is that it can be just another form of seeking for experience and so has nothing really to do with realizing the Truth. No praise or blame relative to any of it though. It clearly can show people that there is something greater than just the physical, and this can have positive effects, though often times it is used as a form of escapism from life. It depends on the person, of course, and what they are willing to settle for.

Reality is as present here where we stand as it is anywhere else we may presume we are.

originally posted by: Entreri06
please show me just one example of a conciousness without a brain?

There is only one Consciousness and it is absolute unconditional Light-Energy that everything appearing is a modification of.

So I can only point you to one - your own fundamental self-aware being is not separate from Consciousness.

Recognize that. That will be much quicker than waiting for science to prove it to you!

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: Entreri06
please show me just one example of a conciousness without a brain?

There is only one Consciousness and it is absolute unconditional Light-Energy that everything appearing is a modification of.

So I can only point you to one - your own fundamental self-aware being is not separate from Consciousness.

Recognize that. That will be much quicker than waiting for science to prove it to you!

So people should just have faith?



The definition of faith is beleiving in some thing against all logic....

Ps: do you have a real example of a conciousness without a brain? Or just your privious, "think outside the box and have faith?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
It is common to assert that one cannot possibly know what occurs after death, and therefor everyone is wrong—well, except for him of course. I must admit this sort of empirically irresponsible agnosticism nauseates me, especially when it is used to stifle further thinking and discussion about actual states of affairs. Luckily for us, however, this argument can be discarded as easily as it is promoted, not only because it is fallacious, but also because it is empirically wrong.

To assert that we cannot know what occurs to a person after death relies on an initial assumption, another case of petitio principii, a circular attempt at reasoning, namely, that the person who apparently does not nor cannot know what happens to himself after death isn't even a person at all, but something like a disembodied soul or intellect, and not anything that results in a corpse. In order to believe one cannot know what occurs after death, he must already assume himself something other than that which dies, for if he were to conclude according to the evidence that he is that which dies, he would already know. As imagined by him, this disembodied soul can only learn of its fate after death, once the body has left and the soul has a chance to look around while unfettered to confirm what indeed does happen, and which religion was right all along. The logic that leads one to the quite common, but ridiculous argument, that one must wait until after death to perform these observations, however, is not logic at all. In fact, it defies all logic.

As we know, because an argument is fallacious does not mean it is wrong, but by virtue of evidence and reason, it is.

Of course, no such entity or substance or little being living in our heads has ever been found, and given the finite area in which to look, absence of evidence is evidence of absence in this case. Not only that but every picture, doctors examination, or glance in the mirror, every x-ray, surgery, and MRI performed on a person, proves the exact opposite. Therefor, any claim that states we cannot know, or any appeal of ignorance in regards to what happens to a person after death, and the illogical and contradictory assumption that are required to make the invalid claim that the person is something other than the person we bury, is done so in the unwarranted and empirically irresponsible denial of the basic facts of reality.

We know exactly what occurs after death, simply by referring to the study of taphonomy, or by witnessing a loved one die, or anything die for that matter. Autolysis and putrefaction, for one, is quite immediate. We bury and cremate our dead, and we visit them from time to time. We do study these processes in great length and detail in cadaver farms, in hospitals, and we can supply this proof until it buries them.

Why hold out for a theory just in case it is true, when it isn't even possible?

Thank you for reading,

LesMis

Atoms are government by the simple law of action and reaction. Everything is causal, except for God and human free will. When you're able to explain to me what part of my physical body can think of anything without a cause (ice cream, F/Eb, Mickey Mouse, quantum flux, etc.) then you may have a point. Otherwise … ;-)

a reply to: Entreri06
Absolutely nothing you stated prooves anything. Even IF it could be proven a signal tells all cells to die that very likely would be the final act of our conciousness leaving our body.

There are no definitive why's or complete understanding as you yourself state.

Too many people want to say since we have no absolute proof we get to ignore all evidence excepy for what fits comfortably with how they want to view things.

The documented cases of out of body experiences are written off. We are far more than our body, facts are facts regardless of what people want to believe. I have had enough evidence to convince me of that fact eventually it will be common knowledge.

Instead of popular belief, the world wad always round regardless of what was presented as facys or truth in the past.

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: zandra
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think there was indeed nothing of our real self before we were born. There just were two separate beings that carried DNA and both of them gave us a part of themselves to make a new being. In case of humans that DNA is manipulated long ago by extraterrestrials. Our consciousness (our soul) is too advanced and cannot come from this earth. Our soul is a kind of self replicating quantum computer build in in our DNA.
And I think humans now are making the same inventions our creators invented more than 12.600 years ago.

read www.evawaseerst.be... only red dots

The brain MIGHT be a quantum computer.....there is zero evidence eluding to a soul or afterlife. If you had a soul wouldn't people maintain that soul after massive brain damage? Instead of our consciousness being SOOOOOO EASILY manipulated by pharmaceuticals or damage?



The real question is why would we survive our bodies death? Cause it sounds good? Nothing else survives death.

Homunculi have great difficulties driving damaged cars … ;-)

I may also add that YOU have zero evidence re an afterlife. So please speak only for yourself. My own experience re this subject was very profound and as real as the computer I type on. I'm not going to preach to you for I believe that everybody is on her/his chosen path, but what you presume to be reality may not be so … !

originally posted by: Entreri06
So people should just have faith?


The definition of faith is beleiving in some thing against all logic....

Ps: do you have a real example of a conciousness without a brain? Or just your privious, "think outside the box and have faith?

Not sure why you think I said that about faith. I look at faith as actual whole bodily feeling communion with Reality, and in that mode of surrender to Reality, we are shown the truth - Consciousness Itself, when the living Reality overwhelms the being.

You are self-aware conscious being. Feel what that is altogether - and the Reality we all are modifications of will reveal itself to you one way or another. But you must persist in this feeling who you actually are. It is self-evident.

You can also see the link in my sig for more consideration of this, if you want.

So the body dies and is food for worms

But what of the thing that laughed and cried, loved or did not ...
that looked to the stars whilst walking upon the Earth and wondered how it all came to be
What their place or purpose for being here might be or not ... that thing we call self some call soul ...
Was it all but a dream of life force firing in our brains and appearing as thoughts and ideas and sometimes inspiration
Where does that spark of life reside now we are dead to the world ...whilst the world goes on dreaming

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

This has to be the most ridiculous, buffoonery I have read in sometime...

In an attempt to sound erudite you make the monstrous assumption that you KNOW what consciousness is because what we are REALLY talking about when talking about the self is the consciousness, NOT the body.

Actually, you can't even know with certainty that the body exists outside of the consciousness, so to try to use premises that are impossible to know for sure in a logical argument is what I first referred to in this post, ridiculous buffoonery.

I will give you one credit though. The logic is sound if the premises (some of which weren't even spoken, which takes away from it a bit), are true. Although the most necessary premise (which also wasn't even directly referred to) is impossible to prove true. That premise is that what we are is solely our bodies.

In fact I could make a sound argument with TESTABLE premises that what we refer to as US is NOT our bodies at all and is instead a frequency of energy that is partially captured by our brains and nervous systems.

So, sorry, you need to start your quest to prove your points over again as this attempt is sorely lacking.

Jaden

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: artistpoet

You assume that you are the body... so when you die you will be no more ... "Food for worms" ... "Pushing up daisy's" so to speak

This should be an interesting thread

Except it's a proven fact.

You double down on the rudidculousness don't you???

It's no where NEAR a proven fact, and the fact that you are spouting that shows just how clueless regarding logical argument you are.

Jaden

a reply to: bb23108

I know you're not evil, bb. It is only what I imagine when I read your words.

Obviously we all know that the body dies upon physical death. This is not the argument, but because you only assume one is the body as a priori knowledge, you can then make the rest of your argument here - that anyone assuming otherwise, is now claiming that no personal being exists. You immediately rule out any possibility of the personality/being having any substance beyond the flesh and bones.

I do rule it out, but I do so by deducing from the brute facts—a posteriori—not from vague abstract ideas and primitive texts. Once again (and again, and again, and again), your charge "but because you only assume one is the body as a priori knowledge", is without merit. How many times have you asserted this without reason? I've lost count.

Let's look at what "assumption" means, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (you might recall, this is the second time I've had to define it for you. I've bolded it.):

assumption |əˈsəm(p)SHən|
noun
1 a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof: they made certain assumptions about the market | [ with clause ] : we're working on the assumption that the time of death was after midnight.
2 the action of taking or beginning to take power or responsibility: the assumption of an active role in regional settlements.
3 (Assumption)the reception of the Virgin Mary bodily into heaven. This was formally declared a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church in 1950. See also Dormition.
• the feast in honor of this, celebrated on August 15.
4 archaic arrogance or presumption.

Let's consider some questions and weigh some scales.

What is a disembodied person? (exchange "person" for ambiguous terms if your wish)
Even in the imagination, what does a disembodied person appear like?
How many times have you (or anyone for that matter), interacted with human who wasn't a body?
How many times have you seen a disembodied person?
How many humans will say they are currently disembodied?
How many times have you witnessed a person leave a body upon death?
What is the population of disembodied humans?

Contrast that with:

What is an embodied person?
Even in the imagination, what does an embodied person appear like?
How many times have you (or anyone for that matter), interacted with human who was a body?
How many times have you seen an embodied person?
How many humans will say they are currently embodied?
How many times have you witnessed a person remain as a body upon death?
What is the population of embodied humans?

Images/video evidence of disembodied humans/persons/awarenesses/consciousnesses/personalities: zero
Images/video evidence of embodied humans: too many to count

Visible and demonstrable instances of humans turning into corpses upon death: every time.
Visible and demonstrable instances of humans turning into disembodied entities upon death: zero

Visible and demonstrable instances of humans no longer living after death: every time.
Visible and demonstrable instances of humans living after death: zero

Visible and demonstrable instances of humans decaying after death: every time.
Visible and demonstrable instances of humans living after death: zero

Visible and demonstrable instances of humans living before death: every time.
Visible and demonstrable instances of humans living after death: zero

Physical evidence that we are bodies: all.
Physical evidence that we are not bodies, but "self-aware consciousness": zero

Non-physical evidence that we are bodies: zero
Non-physical evidence that we are not bodies, but "self-aware consciousness": zero

Theories that circumscribe how consciousness can be self-aware: zero.
Theories that circumscribe how bodies can be self-aware: Too many to name.

Plausible explanations of how non-physical "self-aware consciousness" can interact with and affect the physical body: zero.
Plausible explanations of how a physical process can interact with and affect the physical body: plenty.

When medical doctors determine consciousness in a patient, do they examine the body? Yes.
When medical doctors determine consciousness in a patient, do they examine a disembodied substance? No.

After this brief analysis, who's making the assumption?

So your argument is based on a false notion that you can only assume in a wrongful / a priori manner.

Instead let’s look at your main argument and your conclusion, which is a pretty straight forward non sequitur.

Again, my argument is that the only valid a priori knowledge in this context is, that all of our experiences of anything or anyone always occur in awareness and therefore are psychic or perceptual in nature.

Given this, the error of scientific-materialists is that they then assume they are the body, and that all perceived objects are simply separate, objective, and of a physical materialistic nature. This presumption is certainly NOT directly supported by the self-evidence that all of our experiences are psychic (perceptual) in nature.

“Experiences occur in awareness, and are therefor psychic or perceptual in nature.” You throw these vague terms around quite a bit. I obviously struggle with what you’re trying to put forward, since you can only speak about it and never demonstrate it. Further, as you’ve admitted before, you don’t mean what the words mean, and you’ve developed your own meanings, which I will grant you. In perception; In awareness; almost as if they were containers in which to put something you call experiences. Since you are unable to provide the location or a description of this boundary where inside and outside of awareness meet, even though you’ve stated explicitly it is self-evident, it should be regarded as simple assumption.

But if we look even closer, you are merely raising a tautology. “That all of our experiences of anything or anyone always occur in awareness” is the exact same as saying we experience what we experience, or we are aware of what we are aware of. The question you cannot provide an answer for is who and what is experiencing what they are experiencing, or are aware of what they are aware of. Of course, the answer, given all of the empirical evidence, and confirmed by common sense, and true every single time you touch a key with your finger, with your heart, with your breath, despite your assertions otherwise, is the body.

Are the terms consciousness or awareness nominalized adjectives, which are simply adjectives made to sound like nouns for linguistic convenience? Yes. In other words, perhaps unknowingly to you, these terms are describing something other than a thing or place called “consciousness” or “awareness”, and are signifying the very thing that can be described as conscious or aware. And the nominalized verb “perception”, is not a a place where things can go in and out of, but is an action performed by the very thing that can perceive. That thing is the body, the only thing that can be aware, can perceive, can experience, can be conscious, in every single case of every single human being. What’s ironic in my eyes and is found in nearly everyone in this thread, is this very faith in grammar, is not in your perception and not in your awareness.

Guilty of nominalization. There should be a fallacy for it.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: artistpoet

Nor has science proven that the soul does not exist

If you look in your pocket and there is no money there, it is then proven there is no money there.

I know it's late in the thread, but I didn't want to read through 9 pages before responding.

I see this argument a lot and it really bothers me. This is not a fair comparison. Science has not found a "soul" because they do not have the tools to look for such a claim. Reaching in to your pocket to find no money is you using the best tool you have to look for money in your pocket (your hand).
Furthermore, if you want to talk about "proof" or "fact" then the only thing that you can be absolutely 100% positive of is that YOU exist. How do you know everything else isn't a simulation, our a misinterpretation of what your brain is processing. You can't know this for sure. So saying there is no soul because we have not found a soul being a third person, is the same as saying with certainty that there is no other universe because we haven't found one... How could you know? This is not proof, nor fact.
We haven't even discovered what consciousness really is. Theories, and some very good theories, but no text book facts or answers. Would the best answer to that be "consciousness doesn't exist"? What makes me, me? Why am I not you? Why are we not I (the collective consciousness idea)?

Again, sorry for replying to a post on page 1 on page 9. I just had to reply to this. I do not like the "because I can't prove my thing, I'm going to attack your lack of proof" ideal. It's poor debating skills. Proving someone wrong does not prove you right.

a reply to: qiwi676

So saying there is no soul because we have not found a soul being a third person, is the same as saying with certainty that there is no other universe because we haven't found one... How could you know? This is not proof, nor fact.

Not the same at all. We have a finite area in which we can look—the body. Logically, the body is the "domain of discourse". It is finite, meaning we can exhaust all efforts to search it. We have, and we do, every time we perform a surgery, dissections, or any number of invasive and non-invasive techniques. Do we keep doing laps until we find you're hoping to find? You're feeling around in the dark for something you think might be there, even though you don't know what it is.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: qiwi676

So saying there is no soul because we have not found a soul being a third person, is the same as saying with certainty that there is no other universe because we haven't found one... How could you know? This is not proof, nor fact.

Not the same at all. We have a finite area in which we can look—the body. Logically, the body is the "domain of discourse". It is finite, meaning we can exhaust all efforts to search it. We have, and we do, every time we perform a surgery, dissections, or any number of invasive and non-invasive techniques. Do we keep doing laps until we find you're hoping to find? You're feeling around in the dark for something you think might be there, even though you don't know what it is.

Exactly. The soul has not been defined as a finite object, so therefore we don't know what we are looking for. This is not proof the soul does not exist. Just that it cannot be found by dissecting the body...

Sorry for quoting the entire thing. The windows phone is annoying to type on forums with.