Here's a Prediction: We're Nowhere Near the End

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I struggle to take anyone seriously who makes their username invisible.

a reply to: jonnywhite

Sorry but I can't give anything concrete, that's not how consciousness works, it's an abstract concept within itself.

The only thing I can give you is the concept of before birth and after death being the same place, the place that always leads to birth and experience.

All physical things are made of concrete atoms, only arranged in different ways. Consciousness is an abstract atom, memories are the different forms these abstract atoms take between transitions. My body is the form of my concrete atoms, my mind is the form of my abstract atoms. The atoms (consciousness) remain, the form they take after death does not.

When I was a kid I multiplied four times seven times thirteen times six hundred and sixty six which gives you twenty four twenty four twenty four, which if you add in groups of three gives you six hundred and sixty six. However, if you add the three sixes you get eighteen, which reduces to nine, which was the worst beatle's song ever!

a reply to: ketsuko

Science is not monolithic. You are thinking of religion. There are several competing theories as to how our universe begin. One is the big bang. Within that particular subset there are multiple theories.

One is that our universe came into being when two "branes" (existing universes for purposes of this example) collided and bled into one another.

Another more recent theory is that our universe came into being from the ejected matter of a 4 dimensional black hole in a higher dimensional universe. There are dozens of theories.

Over time, scientists add new quantitative data to the existing subset, reinforcing certain aspects of some theories, while disproving others. This is a normal part of the process of science. We may spend the next ten thousand years learning, hypothesizing, testing and modifying our theories before our accepted theories are proven or disproven, but even then, the accepted theory will simply be the best explanation yet (at that moment) for the dataset.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: jonnywhite

Sorry but I can't give anything concrete, that's not how consciousness works, it's an abstract concept within itself.

The only thing I can give you is the concept of before birth and after death being the same place, the place that always leads to birth and experience.

All physical things are made of concrete atoms, only arranged in different ways. Consciousness is an abstract atom, memories are the different forms these abstract atoms take between transitions. My body is the form of my concrete atoms, my mind is the form of my abstract atoms. The atoms (consciousness) remain, the form they take after death does not.

Ahh so you subscrbie to substance dualism? I don't.

So in your frame of mind, the death of the body is just the death of the physical substance. The mental substance, our consciousness, continues to exist in some way, possibly reincarnating into another creature or having some kind of afterlife. Memories are not preserved.

The way -I- see it's all the same substance. There's no separation between the physical and mental. I see the mind as the sum of its parts, just as a planet or a star or galaxy is. When the body dies, the energy which feeds the consciousness fades. The individual parts defining it start dying. The consciousness may exist for some moments after death, but it soon shuts off, almost like a computer. Soon the individual parts are recycled into other things, possibly living things. Nothing of the original person is preserved except what's stored in the individual parts. Since I define the human mind as a sum of its parts then it cannot be preserved in anyway through recycling of this nature. So I won't say the way recycling works heavily implies consciousness is preserved somehow, like you did.

If all humans died and all that remained were bits of our civilization and possibly some data storage devices, that wouldn't be the end of what we were. If panspermia is true then we were probably partly created by other things in the universe, meaning others such as ourselves probably exist in the rest of the universe. And if life is a fundamental force in the universe and acts similarly without consideration to locality then the prevalence of others like ourselves might be high, both past, present and future. Admittedly, turning to my neighbor and seeing myself is a stretch, but it's the closest thing I have to living forever in my lexicon. It's even more of a stretch to see myself in a non-human lifeform, but it can also be argued we share common traits due to our status as living beings.

So that's what -I- see. I do not see our consciousness surviving death in anyway, except indirectly through children or culture or other things which might ensure that part of myself is repeated past, present or future.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Great OP! I love your posts and your point of view! Thank you.

a reply to: jonnywhite

If the mind is the same thing as the body, both being the same substance, then how do you explain meditation, dreams, OBE's, etc.? Whenever I meditate, I no longer inhabit the physical realm.

Yeah, my body is still here and its functions are still operating according to anyone looking at me, but from my vantage point I am no longer "in" my body. This may be hard for someone who has never meditated to understand, but I have experienced it first hand. Yeah, the mind requires a body to exist, but the mind can still tap into something that is not "of" the body. Ever had a lucid dream? I have, and where I am is not in the body, but a place that I create within my mind.

Thoughts are not the same substance as my body. My brain taps into something that is not physical at all and creates non-physical images and thoughts within my mind that I then see and interpret. When I think of a red balloon, there is not literally a red balloon inside my brain, that image is made of a different, non-physical substance than what makes up my brain matter.

a reply to: jonnywhite

I'll give an example of why I don't think consciousness is the same substance as our bodies: someone with alzheimer's. They lose their memory based on deteriorating brain matter, yet they are still conscious and able to talk and interact with other people. They may not remember who they are, where they are, or who their family members are, but they are still alive and kicking. Consciousness cannot be the same substance as our bodies.

You may give me some flack for this one, but the bible talks about marriage a lot. Marriage can be defined as "a mixture of two or more elements", we are that marriage of two elements (substances). I'm not Christian or a bible thumper either, my post history will confirm that. The two "substances" are body (material) and spirit (immaterial), when a body receives the life force at conception the union or marriage is made complete. When those two elements are brought together, a third element is created. We are like the golden ratio personified. A body and spirit combining to create life, two numbers adding together to create the third. I wonder where the idea of the Trinity came from? Hmmm...

No wonder most everything in the universe follows the golden ratio in one form or another, we as the universe experiencing itself are that golden ratio personified.

originally posted by: jonnywhite

Don't play with me, I do not like that. Look, when we die, our consciousness is dead. It doesn't leave the body without our memories and personalities. It doesn't get reincarnated or experience an eternal afterlife. The life switch is off.

Weeell, there is much research to show that memory is in the DNA sequence and can be passed down, through generations, or even just the past generation.

"Memories can be passed down to later generations through genetic switches that allow offspring to inherit the experience of their ancestors, according to new research that may explain how phobias can develop.
Scientists have long assumed that memories and learned experiences built up during a lifetime must be passed on by teaching later generations or through personal experience.
However, new research has shown that it is possible for some information to be inherited biologically through chemical changes that occur in DNA."

www.telegraph.co.uk...
Thing is the mice experiments were induced, and the strong emotion of fear by association with the specific target of Cherry Blossom, and it worked, or had the desired result, or to see result.
It's the perfect Deja Vu moment for the second generation meece, and they were only born and never experienced a Cherry Blossom before!
So it can be argued at least in these early days that your memory, or parts thereof can transcend you into the next generation...the mind boggles at that.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Yes, I understand there are competing theories, but the Big Bang is prevalent.

However, just as there are competing theories in science, there are also competing dogmas in religion. No two faiths are exactly the same.

Perhaps we ought to banish the word monolith from this discussion?

a reply to: ketsuko

I'm all for it, except that there is literally no way for religion to change when confronted with new data in the dataset. Since it cannot admit new data, or change when exposed to new data, it is monolithic.

You haven't been reading the news lately have you?

It is Western Nation and America causing the the end of Earth as we know it. Throwing toxic chemicals all over the ocean. Full of nuclear plants to DU rounds. Once the West conquers China it would already be a toxic wasteland after the war. People continue to be born with disease, GMO stuff, cancer, etc. The Planet can't hand all that crap, many fish and birds had already died. Bombing China is a big no no now a days. Who would clean up all the toxic chemical spills from factories or radiation from Nuclear plants. Just look what happened after China's explosion or Japan's Fukushima.
Nato isn't even doing jack about America itself when they should be doing is getting rid of the corruption. Its an alliance, just like all alliance it can break if one gets corrupt, just like Italians going against Germany in WW2.

If you can't create a farm on the lands then your just better off shooting yourself or die of hunger.

Look at Mars as an example. Mars is just lucky the planet didn't explode into pieces, but cannot support life what so ever anymore.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Heey, where did you get info on the eclipses for the future?

i can only get until 3000AD

a reply to: makemap

Like I said, it may be the end of society and civilization as we know it, but it is not the end. Earth will survive, it will recover and life will as well. If Earth can turn from a boiling hot magma ball early in its life into the garden planet with millions of different species we see today, it can survive and recover from what humans are doing to it right now. The only question is how long it will take.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: makemap

Like I said, it may be the end of society and civilization as we know it, but it is not the end. Earth will survive, it will recover and life will as well. If Earth can turn from a boiling hot magma ball early in its life into the garden planet with millions of different species we see today, it can survive and recover from what humans are doing to it right now. The only question is how long it will take.

The stuff we make is not natural for the planet. The planet can't recycle most of the stuff we make.
wwf.panda.org...

End of life on Earth is more than likely what you would be talking about. End of the planet would be the entire planet being destroyed/blown up. If Mars can't recover what do you think Earth can?

There is no life without water, there is no life without fire. I highly doubt Earth was a boiling hot magma ball at start. Water has to come from somewhere, maybe from a icy planet like Pluto crashing into it. If Earth was a magma ball at start the land we be standing on would be melting. It is dust and rock that can withstand the heat of magma.

Humans didn't do much impact to the planet until the West started industrializing like crazy. You can't blame other human race for this to be honest as it started with the White. China was low tech as ever in the past, the only reason why its technologically advance today is because they were given the industrialization techs. For all I know, if the West had stop meddling with Asian Affairs/African. Japan, and China would be living more with Nature. Africans would continue to be as tribal as ever.

a reply to: makemap

You're working under the presupposition that Mars ever had life on it to begin with. That's not a very strong foundation for your argument, how do we know Mars ever had life at all?

You doubt Earth was a magma ball early in its life? You're going against well established science then. The Earth most definitely started as a ball of magma and as it cooled we got dust and rock which then formed water in one way or another, either by changes in the atmosphere or icy comets hitting it.

The Earth hasn't always been here, it had to start somehow, the scientific explanation as of this point is that it was once part of the sun and broke off and was magma until it cooled down. This is a scientific theory with a VERY strong foundation. How do islands form? They were once lava, yet they have rock and sand on them. It's because the lava came into contact with cooler ocean water just as the molten Earth was cooled by the freezing space around it. It's a very simple concept.

Also, I have no arguments with you on industrialization polluting the Earth. You're spot on with that.