I Don't Understand Death, Nobody Does!

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: spygeek
Objectively speaking, death is the cessation of all biological function. It is the end of biological life.

The claim that there is life beyond death requires that life be redefined as something non-biological, non-chemical, and non-physical.

This redefinition is not logically possible.

And what of the start of all biological life? If only the biological/chemical/physical can exist, then how do you explain the origin of the first piece of matter?

I love this question.

What you think about the answer?

Do you have answer yourself?

Nope not in the slightest, but I love the question being presented as part of this discussion.

You said it yourself, scientists don't know.

Physicists are still invesigation this

Physicists don't know for certain, but they do have a solid, well informed explanation that will only become more well informed with further investigation.

They know enough to provide that at least.

=)

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: spygeek

I think now I can see more clearly from where you are arguing.

Allow me to make a factual statement and then ask you a question.

Phenomena that cannot that be seen by the naked eye (oxygen, microbes, sound waves etc.) were once thought not to exist (at least not observably) until the relevant instrument was invented that could measure them. At the time, your current argument ("there is no measurable physical/chemical basis for their existence, therefore it cannot be determined
that they do indeed exist") would have been logically sound and dismissive of their existence. Did this mean at the time that they did not exist, and would you have been classified as superstitious for believing in them? Why or why not?

The difference with your examples however, is that these are all physical things. If I believed they existed and that one day we could conceivably invent an instrument to detect and measure them, I would at least have a logical case for my belief to be confirmed in future.

If I believed that these things were not physical, then there could never be such an instrument to detect them, and logically any claim of their existence could never be confirmed.. Essentially I would have faith in the logically impossible, the unfalsifiable, the indefinable.

Never is a strong word. If we only adopt current methods and tools that are primarily designed only to obtain physical attributes then yes, you would be right. I would assume we could not find anything non-physical with tools built to find the physical.

I'm scratching my head though. Even if conciousness was indeed seperate, would a physical tool (built to try and find it) be able to measure it at all. Could you find the non-physical with the physical? Hmm.

What's to say conciousness is non-physical? It may be physical, just not in the same light as we understand it.

originally posted by: korath
I think we all go round and round until we get it right. Fear death as much as the last time you died.

You might; I won't as am in the understanding of this TRAP (endless hamster wheel roundabouts).

originally posted by: korath
I think we all go round and round until we get it right. Fear death as much as the last time you died.

Your soul is eternal. Your body is physical and just a vessel that cannot fear anything/a suit of clothes you discard because it wore out. There is no death just the fear of it.

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: spygeek

I think now I can see more clearly from where you are arguing.

Allow me to make a factual statement and then ask you a question.

Phenomena that cannot that be seen by the naked eye (oxygen, microbes, sound waves etc.) were once thought not to exist (at least not observably) until the relevant instrument was invented that could measure them. At the time, your current argument ("there is no measurable physical/chemical basis for their existence, therefore it cannot be determined
that they do indeed exist") would have been logically sound and dismissive of their existence. Did this mean at the time that they did not exist, and would you have been classified as superstitious for believing in them? Why or why not?

The difference with your examples however, is that these are all physical things. If I believed they existed and that one day we could conceivably invent an instrument to detect and measure them, I would at least have a logical case for my belief to be confirmed in future.

If I believed that these things were not physical, then there could never be such an instrument to detect them, and logically any claim of their existence could never be confirmed.. Essentially I would have faith in the logically impossible, the unfalsifiable, the indefinable.

Never is a strong word. If we only adopt current methods and tools that are primarily designed only to obtain physical attributes then yes, you would be right. I would assume we could not find anything non-physical with tools built to find the physical.

The non-physical does not physically exist. No tool ever could conceivably detect the non-physical.

I'm scratching my head though. Even if conciousness was indeed seperate, would a physical tool (built to try and find it) be able to measure it at all. Could you find the non-physical with the physical? Hmm.

No, you couldn't. The non-physical does not exist. If it existed, it would be physical.

You're basically asking if we could detect non-existence. This is illogical.

What's to say conciousness is non-physical? It may be physical, just not in the same light as we understand it.

People have been throwing around the idea of consciousness being non-physical for centuries. It's an illogical proposition.

Our understanding of consciousness is actually very good, and neuroscience has all but reduced it to interactions of neurotransmitters in the brain, (to put it very very simply).

The concept of the non-physical essentially relies on the philosophy of material dualism, which itself has some serious contradictions and logical flaws as a concept..

originally posted by: spygeek
No, you couldn't. The non-physical does not exist. If it existed, it would be physical.

Because we can't measure it, does not mean it doesn't exist, it simply means we cannot measure it. Essentially we need to agree that it does not physically exist with our current technology and that we may never be able to prove whether it does or does not exist. Right now all we have are theories, like the current theories on consciousness.

Our understanding of consciousness is actually very good, and neuroscience has all but reduced it to interactions of neurotransmitters in the brain, (to put it very very simply).

All science has with regards consciousness are theories.

The concept of the non-physical essentially relies on the philosophy of material dualism, which itself has some serious contradictions and logical flaws as a concept..

But maybe life after death has a physical attribute that we cannot see or measure at this time. Much in the same manner we cannot deduce the entire spectrum.

You don't really have to understand death because it's just a word that the describes many words.

I think life as a newborn starts with love , love for the ones that made this happen and protect you and give love back in this world.

The end seems to do the same , one understands that the end is near and starts to realize that everything they are losing were the ones they loved the most valuable thing man can posses.

So at the end love seems to be the only pure thing that keeps everything in balance here and at the other side where many described as eternal love .

It's something we all seem to contemplate at times when it's so easy to lose it all ..

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: spygeek
No, you couldn't. The non-physical does not exist. If it existed, it would be physical.

Because we can't measure it, does not mean it doesn't exist, it simply means we cannot measure it. Essentially we need to agree that it does not physically exist with our current technology and that we may never be able to prove whether it does or does not exist. Right now all we have are theories, like the current theories on consciousness.

Similarly, just because you can imagine a kind of "non-physical" stuff, does not mean it does exist.

The non physical does not physically exist. That's what the "non" part means. Technology does not come into it, it's logically impossible from the outset.

For the non-physical to exist, is for the nonexistent to exist. It's oxymoronic. If something is non-physical, it literally is nothing.

Also you are substituting the scientific definition of theory with the lay-definition. All you have are theories, all scientists have are scientific theories.

Our understanding of consciousness is actually very good, and neuroscience has all but reduced it to interactions of neurotransmitters in the brain, (to put it very very simply).

All science has with regards consciousness are theories.

Again, a scientific theory is not 'just a theory' by the lay-definition. A scientific theory is a technical term with a specialised definition. It is a model, repeatedly proven to the point of reliable certainty with observation, experiment, and objective evidence.

The concept of the non-physical essentially relies on the philosophy of material dualism, which itself has some serious contradictions and logical flaws as a concept..

But maybe life after death has a physical attribute that we cannot see or measure at this time. Much in the same manner we cannot deduce the entire spectrum.

This is possible, but extremely unlikely as there is literally nothing to suggest this is the case.

For this proposition to be taken seriously, a detailed hypothesis is required to justify why it would be so. It would need to cover what hypothetical properties this unknown attribute has, in what way it could conceivably be identified, and what predictions could be made if it does indeed exist. The hypothesis would also be required to explain why there is a need for it to exist to explain anything, and identify where our current knowledge is insufficient. It would be necessary to explain how it fits in with current understanding, or if it contradicts what we already know, why such a contradiction occurs.

No such hypothesis exists. All I have ever seen, (and I have read a lot of avant garde and progressive hypotheses as an academic, many unfinished), is arguments from assertion and unjustified claims.

originally posted by: spygeek

Again, a scientific theory is not 'just a theory' by the lay-definition. A scientific theory is a technical term with a specialised definition. It is a model, repeatedly proven to the point of reliable certainty with observation, experiment, and objective evidence.

OK, then what theory are you currently in favor of? I want to know what it is you are agreeing with here as the theories I am looking at cannot fully explain consciousness. In fact the most credible theory is IIT, which I would assume you find quite of lot of the latest findings disturbing?

But again, it's only a theory.

I will just leave this here for anyone curious

There are many other scientific research papers available than listed here, which has evidence that there is something more...but I guess mainstream scientists will not accept those researches, for some silly bias, in my opinion.

here are just a few links:
allreality.com...
themindunleashed.org...
themindunleashed.org...


Interesting read, for anyone interested in science and consciousness research!
But of course many will say that this researches are not valid due to some reason, as it happens a few times on ATS when I posted this links...bias is strong in everyone I guess, even in me to some degree : )

well from all the implications and many evidences there is something or a LOT more going on behind the material world...this is only logical and rational conclusion, if one ponders about what was already evident by science on those links.

All implications implicate that we don't know squat, when it comes to materialistic mainstream science standpoint...and we should redefine a few terms:
- consciousness
- the mind
- physical and nonphysical (if its non physical it does not exists nonsense)

Why?
from my experiance "dreams" are as much a reality as "reality" is a "dream".

also than there we have, and I would dare to bet a few posters have experienced at least one of these:
- placebo, what is the real nature of it?
- source of intuition, dejavu?
- precognitive dreams (A few posters on ATS have proved this is the case, look recent dream thread about Brussels bombing prediction, for instance...)
- ghosts
- ...

than we have FACTS:
- we only see VERY small part of visible universe
( www.space.com... )
- universe is more "empty" than "full"
( education.jlab.org... )
- ...

originally posted by: spygeek

For this proposition to be taken seriously, a detailed hypothesis is required to justify why it would be so. It would need to cover what hypothetical properties this unknown attribute has, in what way it could conceivably be identified, and what predictions could be made if it does indeed exist. The hypothesis would also be required to explain why there is a need for it to exist to explain anything, and identify where our current knowledge is insufficient. It would be necessary to explain how it fits in with current understanding, or if it contradicts what we already know, why such a contradiction occurs.

No such hypothesis exists. All I have ever seen, (and I have read a lot of avant garde and progressive hypotheses as an academic, many unfinished), is arguments from assertion and unjustified claims.

I've mentioned Biocentrism to you twice in this thread and you haven't jumped on it. Why? I thought it would be something you'd like to get your teeth into.

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: spygeek

Again, a scientific theory is not 'just a theory' by the lay-definition. A scientific theory is a technical term with a specialised definition. It is a model, repeatedly proven to the point of reliable certainty with observation, experiment, and objective evidence.

OK, then what theory are you currently in favor of? I want to know what it is you are agreeing with here as the theories I am looking at cannot fully explain consciousness. In fact the most credible theory is IIT, which I would assume you find quite of lot of the latest findings disturbing?

But again, it's only a theory.

Integrated information theory can theoretically be used to quantify consciousness using a measure of information processing and integration, (i.e. how "much" consciousness an organism has based on how much information it integrates). It can't be used to explain how consciousness arises from neural activity and electrochemistry.

I'm not sure what to what latest findings you refer that have implications I would find disturbing..

The work of Christof Koch and Francis Crick suggested that the core of consciousness is governed by the claustrum. This region of the brain would receive a large amount of sensory and cognitive information from many distinct regions of the brain and effectively integrate and condense it down into one cohesive continuous whole; the mechanism of conscious awareness.

Their work was somewhat validated by the work of Mohamad Koubeissi and his team who found that electrical stimulation of the claustrum led to an immediate loss of consciousness. They found they could turn consciousness "on and off" through stimulation of the claustrum alone.

This is an example of physical evidence for consciousness being an emergent physiological feature, existing as a result of localised neural activity in the brain.

originally posted by: UniFinity
I will just leave this here for anyone curious

There are many other scientific research papers available than listed here, which has evidence that there is something more...but I guess mainstream scientists will not accept those researches, for some silly bias, in my opinion.

here are just a few links:
allreality.com...
themindunleashed.org...
themindunleashed.org...

"themindunleashed.org" is not a legitimate scientific journal. It is a site that misrepresents data from studies and claims it is scientific proof of their their own preconceived beliefs.

Always, always, always source your scientific literature from actual scientific journals and make sure you read the actual studies themselves. Anyone can create a site like themindunleashed and reference studies to back up their claims, unless the readers of the site actually read the studies themselves they will not know if the site's conclusions and inferences have any merit.

From what I can tell, "allreality.com" does the same thing, only the focus appears to be on quantum woo..

Interesting read, for anyone interested in science and consciousness research!

A more interesting read is the actual studies themselves, which do not infer what the above sites claim they do..

But of course many will say that this researches are not valid due to some reason, as it happens a few times on ATS when I posted this links...bias is strong in everyone I guess, even in me to some degree : )

The research and studies are valid, but the websites listed above misrepresent and contort the data from the studies to fit their own beliefs. The authors of the websites perform no research of their own.

well from all the implications and many evidences there is something or a LOT more going on behind the material world...this is only logical and rational conclusion, if one ponders about what was already evident by science on those links.

There is no science in those links. Often the articles in those links don't even link to the studies at all. When they do, it becomes clear they are not objectively evaluating the data.

All implications implicate that we don't know squat, when it comes to materialistic mainstream science standpoint...and we should redefine a few terms:
- consciousness
- the mind
- physical and nonphysical (if its non physical it does not exists nonsense)

If material science doesn't know squat, then pseudoscientific interpretations of material science know even less.

What us wrong with the current definition of consciousness? The mind? If our understanding of these things is not complete, we can't fix that by redefining them.

How is"if it's non-physical it doesn't exist" nonsense? How are you defining existence? If we extend the definition to include the non-physical, then anything at all you want to dream up can be said to exist, and the term loses all definitive meaning.

Why?
from my experiance "dreams" are as much a reality as "reality" is a "dream".

Of course they are. To the neural activity that makes up our experience of the world, there is no difference between a dream perception or action, and the real waking perception or action. This is basic level neuroscience.

also than there we have, and I would dare to bet a few posters have experienced at least one of these:
- placebo, what is the real nature of it?
- source of intuition, dejavu?
- precognitive dreams (A few posters on ATS have proved this is the case, look recent dream thread about Brussels bombing prediction, for instance...)
- ghosts
- ...

-placebo: the effect the sub and unconscious processes of the mind have on internal physiology when fed certain information.
-intuition: the subconscious' ability to influence conscious decision-making, through its own biases.
-deja vu: a curious quirk of memory wherein a new experience feels familiar. It is hypothesised that it is caused by a neural 'misfire' wherein the brain both experiences and remembers an event simultaneously. Very difficult to empirically test.
-precognitive dreams: according to the law of large numbers, occurrences of dreams that are "prophetic" or "precognitive" are the result of inevitable coincidence.
-ghosts: imaginary non-physical beings made up by people who otherwise fail to explain a given natural event.

than we have FACTS:
- we only see VERY small part of visible universe
( www.space.com... )
- universe is more "empty" than "full"
( education.jlab.org... )
- ...

These facts have no bearing on the existence of the "non-physical". Dark matter and energy are clearly physical, and the behaviour of electrons is physical.

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: spygeek

For this proposition to be taken seriously, a detailed hypothesis is required to justify why it would be so. It would need to cover what hypothetical properties this unknown attribute has, in what way it could conceivably be identified, and what predictions could be made if it does indeed exist. The hypothesis would also be required to explain why there is a need for it to exist to explain anything, and identify where our current knowledge is insufficient. It would be necessary to explain how it fits in with current understanding, or if it contradicts what we already know, why such a contradiction occurs.

No such hypothesis exists. All I have ever seen, (and I have read a lot of avant garde and progressive hypotheses as an academic, many unfinished), is arguments from assertion and unjustified claims.

I've mentioned Biocentrism to you twice in this thread and you haven't jumped on it. Why? I thought it would be something you'd like to get your teeth into.

I have ignored your references to biocentrism as it is not science. It is a pseudoscientific philosophy that essentially claims that universe is created by the consciousness that observes it. It's solipsism on a universal scale and is incoherent.

It is not logical to state that consciousness creates the universe when the universe is required to exist for consciousness to exist in the first place. Essentially biocentrism boils down to there being no universe at all.

The arguments put forward to justify biocentrism equate to applying quantum mechanics' 'observer effect' to the macro, relativistic scale, this is ludicrous.

Biocentrism is a self-refuting concept that has no basis in objective reality; indeed, it rejects objectivity completely and claims it does not exist.

Biocentrism does not fulfill the criteria of scientific hypothesis, as it is not based on any accepted knowledge or observation, and cannot be used to make any kind of predictions.

a reply to: spygeek

thanks for your opinion, but you see what you want to see, from these links. The fact is that there is a lot of weirdness going on and this was tested and reported. You ignore it, maybe you think that they are all lies?

well I read it and test it on myself a long time ago...and have discovered a bit of real nature behind these things and I think there are a lot honest people around and what they have reported on those links has truly happened in most cases...but please, you can rely on mainstream science and make your own conclusion and ignore what not so mainstream science is researching....

but what if the outside observations made by mainstream science are missing a lot? Like for instance some user mentioned the thing about undiscovered rays of light and radiation.

...think about chakras and pranas and bindus!

probably they don't "exists" for you, yet we are ALL using them. Every living being....

....
you say ... no bearing ?

maybe, maybe not, we cannot know that now can we? You only conclude that in order to suit your own bias and I can do that also.
What is the real nature of dark matter and why is "physical" universe nearly empty says a lot about implications that reality is like a dream...this is what ALL the ancients masters in different religions say after all...and this is what science will soon come around too. It may be either in quantum or the universe. Research in science of the smallest or the biggest "particles" will lead all blind scientists into the truth in my opinion.

we have to redefine the terms in order to better describe their real nature. Because what they are accepted as today is in no way sufficient enough to integrate non material stuff into the system.

How would you define chakras with the current system or prana...they are "non physical", yet can be felt by every serious meditator...or anyone else a bit more sensitive if one does correct pranayama aka. Indian yogic breathing techniques...

can the mind detect or manipulate prana?
or is maybe consciousness who manipulates prana?
who is the real observer, the consciousness or the mind?
if prana is "non-physical" yet it "exists" ... huh??

this here are just a few examples...how our current system is lacking...due to its blind materialism. well ...but just for instance, if one takes buddhist philosophy in consideration, than the mind and consciousness and existence have a whole different meaning and I think they are a lot closer to the truth of our real nature by experiencing a bit of what they say.

If what you say about your meditations is true, you should feel and observe and contemplate those things and their implications to some degree and should know what they are and should know even the answers to those questions by self experiance. If you haven't, well here are a few reasons:
- you are lying about regular deep meditation for years
- you are to clinging to materialism and don't know how to let go into silence completely during meditation
- you are not clean or pure enough in body and mind to feel these things

well sorry to say this so bluntly, but there must be some reason why your progress or awarness is not developing as it normally should in meditation...I think. well I am no expert... : )

Also, I want to point out, that I don't know what is the REAL truth about our nature yet (...which religions or philosophy has it right, but after deep research and study and a bit of practice of all religions ancient, old and new for years...I have concluded for myself that pure old buddhisem is closest to it, for me), well...but I know for certain that what mainstream science says today it is, it is NOT!

imho.

a reply to: UniFinity

I'm not going to be drawn into a debate about the perceived merits of pseudoscience and untestable hypotheses.. If you research the studies cited in the articles you linked, it becomes obvious that they are either discredited, unreliable, not actually studies, or do not infer what is claimed by the articles that cite them.

We are drifting far off topic and no amount of debate is going to reconcile our views.

If what you say about your meditations is true, you should feel and observe and contemplate those things and their implications to some degree and should know what they are and should know even the answers to those questions by self experiance. If you haven't, well here are a few reasons:
- you are lying about regular deep meditation for years
- you are to clinging to materialism and don't know how to let go into silence completely during meditation
- you are not clean or pure enough in body and mind to feel these things

So if my meditation has not resulted in me believing the things you believe I must be lying, doing it wrong, clinging to false beliefs, or are not "clean or pure" enough?

I'm sorry, but grow up!
You haven't articulated any rational answers and you posses no secret, sacred knowledge that is inaccessible to anyone else. You have a personal preconceived notion about the nature of the universe and you are not interested in an objective appraisal of it, going so far as to demean those who attempt to perform such an appraisal.

Live long and prosper Unifinity, may your bias remain forever strong in the face of skeptical objectivity.

a reply to: spygeek

that is the thing, it is NOT about beliefs, but ONLY experiance...that is the point I am trying to convey.

And it has everything to do with this topic in my opinion. It is a topic about life after death. And if you want to find out what happens after death, you should find out who you are ... than you will know what "dies" and what "lives".

I am not talking about beliefs, but about experiance...if you would truly devote yourself to meditation and work on cleaning your body and mind, you would have a lot of different experiences, it is a natural process, nothing at ALL to do with beliefs. But as everything is in "the mind", they can get in the way. So we have to empty and purify our mind and body in more ways than one...this is a concepts which is similar in many religions...like practice of fasting, etc...

So your grow up comment can be mirrored right back at you...grow up from science and find out for yourSELF, who you are. But if takes a LOT of work to get anywhere. One needs to be pure in mind and body it seems...I don't make the rules, I just want to discover them : )

To find out who you are:
- drop all science,
- all books
- all religions
- all philosophies
- all concepts

and learn to truly meditate and discover with practice and (non) experiance. So can you grow up from all of these, and depend a bit more on internal wisdom and experiences, or do you need to cling to something like science or anything on the list above?...heh..who needs to grow up now, if you look at it like this ... I wonder : )

That is what should be done in my opinion to discover anything real about real you... real "I".

Thank you for being respectful even though we disagree.

originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: spygeek

that is the thing, it is NOT about beliefs, but ONLY experiance...that is the point I am trying to convey.

What experience though? Death? Or meditation? You can't substitute the latter for the former and claim it to be an experience of death..

And it has everything to do with this topic in my opinion. It is a topic about life after death. And if you want to find out what happens after death, you should find out who you are ... than you will know who "dies" and what "lives".

The links to the pseudoscience peddled in themindunleashed.org and allreality.com weren't really on topic..

If you want to find out what happens after death, you should observe people who have died.. or you could die yourself, but then you wouldn't find out anything, you'd be dead..

You still have to assume something lives on after the other thing dies for this "find out who you are" to have any reason. It appears you have taken this assumption and formed a belief with it, without defining or quantifying what these things that die or live even are..

I am not talking about beliefs, but about experiance...

So your grow up comment can be mirrored right back at you...grow up from science and find out for yourSELF, who you are.

But what experience? You have not experienced death, so what experience could be relevant?

What does "grow up from science" even mean?

I know exactly who I am. According to your immature, high horse judgement, (which is what prompted my instruction to grow up), I am either a liar, an unclean and impure person, or clinging to materialism unjustifiably..

a reply to: spygeek

I am sorry, I did not mean any disrespect when I talked about the purity. I do not take you as a bad person in any way, I don't know you after all but from what I have experienced, you seem a lot like my friends who like science a lot and abide by it...so a normal guy into science or maybe a scientist...cheers to that! I have many friends a bit like you ... all very great people.

And what is meant by growing up is to leave it behind, don't lean and attach anything to it. Don't have false beliefs based on observation made by science if you want to get down to real self.

complete silence and meditate.

try to achieve samadhi in meditation and learn.

Waking state is just one side of the coin. What about dreaming and deep sleep. Who is behind the wheel in reality. To find that out one must enjoy perfect silence and grow up from concepts and books...from all imaginary stuff we absorb. it takes a LOT of work, for some it takes their whole lives to drop all clinging.

to do that, we have to be completely "naked" and we have to learn to enjoy that, it is our natural state...for instance try in meditation to return to what it was like when we were babies...most naturally pure and clean. Mind without any concept and words or thoughts or attachments! ... of our reality and universe. And body without any poisons whatsoever.

This is the state which is similar to what I am pointing to with purity and cleanness of body and mind.

This is the basis from which we can grow ... in natural meditation. without ANY effort at all, if there is effort, there is still clinging.

Learn to let go is the point. We are all unclean and dirty, even I or anyone else in general who is normal adult in our sick and superficial modern society. But in my opinion we can work and change that if we want to learn something about our real SELF...in pure silence and meditation, where there is no "I". No thoughts, No concepts. No clinging. No desires.

and in my opinion if one learns that, than questions about life and death is obvious from (non)experiance and realizations about real SELF.

originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: spygeek

I am sorry, I did not mean any disrespect when I talked about the purity. I do not take you as a bad person in any way, I don't know you after all but from what I have experienced, you seem a lot like my friends who like science a lot and abide by it...so a normal guy into science or maybe a scientist...cheers to that! I have many friends a bit like you ... all very great people.

No offense taken, I appreciate the apology. Perhaps I should inform you that you are speaking to a professor of humanities, with a considerable education in science and philosophy. I have a few acquaintances who are professors of chemistry, physics, and biology, so I tend to know what I am talking about when it comes to scientific principles..

And what is meant by growing up is to leave it behind, don't lean and attach anything to it. Don't have false beliefs based on observation made by science if you want to get down to real self.

Leave science behind because it's observations and theories don't get down to the real self? As in the psychological construct of "self", or the philosophical notion of "being"?

Fair enough I guess. But if we abandon physical science in favour of psychology and philosophy, we step away from life and death being anything more than abstract concepts and can't make any definitive deductions at all..

complete silence and meditate.

try to achieve samadhi in meditation and learn.

Waking state is just one side of the coin. What about dreaming and deep sleep. Who is behind the wheel in reality. To find that out one must enjoy perfect silence and grow up from concepts and books...from all imaginary stuff we absorb. it takes a LOT of work, for some it takes their whole lives to drop all clinging.

to do that, we have to be completely "naked" and we have to learn to enjoy that, it is our natural state...for instance try in meditation to return to what it was like when we were babies...most naturally pure and clean. Mind without any concept and words or thoughts or attachments! ... of our reality and universe. And body without any poisons whatsoever.

This is the state which is similar to what I am pointing to with purity and cleanness of body and mind.

This is the basis from which we can grow ... in natural meditation. without ANY effort at all, if there is effort, there is still clinging.

Learn to let go is the point. We are all unclean and dirty, even I or anyone else in general who is normal adult in our sick and superficial modern society. But in my opinion we can work and change that if we want to learn something about our real SELF...in pure silence and meditation, where there is no "I". No thoughts, No concepts. No clinching. No desires.

and in my opinion if one learns that, than questions about life and death is obvious from (non)experiance and realizations about real SELF..

I have found that once you've learnt to do all this, life and death become irrelevant and inconsequential, and the self is all that is.