Physical Death. Let's Face It. Let's Discuss It.

reply to post by Murgatroid


I'd have to say "irrefutable proof" to you is "interesting anecdote" to me.

That's why I said I haven't seen any that were really up to the level of scientific evidence. Those examples are not that.

Ask the Japanese about what has a soul. They have many philosophies that are counter to typical Western views, one of them being that there is soul in just about everything. I have not researched this much, but I can cite three examples that I have studied. One being trees. Another is the soul of a forged blade. And one more is the whimsical buses that they make for children to go to school in. We use a bus that is one step away from a prison bus, while they make their buses look like cute animals that would make your head explode into candy or kid figures like Thomas the Train. Roads have mascots! Robots wear smiles. You get the point.


Everything is energy. Energy = consciousness. Everything has consciousness. However there are always different vibration states and as such, a rock does not have the consciousness that we do, as we have simply evolved our bodies a bit more to embody more of the infinite consciousness that we are. That said, the human body can't fully contain our consciousness and is limited as well. Until we don our lightbody, the I AM that is us, that's when things get "real" so to speak. Ever astral travel?

reply to post by fourthmeal


Energy is not consciousness. Energy is the capacity to do work.

reply to post by Bedlam


Does this even make sense to you when you said it?

reply to post by fourthmeal


It's the truth. Oh, and the whole vibration thing is bogus too. Theosophy arrogated a lot of physics terms to itself to lend itself credibility back in the early 1900's, it lives on as New Age beliefs. Along with the misuse of physics terms it highjacked.

eg:

Definition: Energy is the capacity of a physical system to perform work. Energy exists in several forms such as heat, kinetic or mechanical energy, light, potential energy, electrical, or other forms.

energy [en´er-je]
power that may be translated into motion, overcoming resistance or causing a physical change; the ability to do work.

3 Physics the property of matter and radiation which is manifest as a capacity to perform work (such as causing motion or the interaction of molecules):

You'll note a common theme here, and in every physics definition of the term - "energy is the capacity to do work", there are literally thousands of cites that will all say the same thing, as will any physics text, because that's the definition of energy.

Oh I didn't realize that "Physics" was your religion. My mistake.

I thought we were talking about something free of religion, like consciousness and such.

reply to post by Angle

When does the energy enter a human being? Is it being after a foetus arised for three weeks?

Well, I think it's quite safe to say that energy doesn't enter a human being unless ingested and processed by the digestive system. For a fetus, it is passed down from the parents.

The sperm arrives from a living father, already functioning and full of 'energy.' That sperm combines with the egg, which is a part of an already functioning and 'energetic' mother. The already energized sperm and already energized egg form another human, which is grown and fostered within an already energetic womb, fed by an already energetic umbilical cord until it is born.

Right until the umbilical cord is cut, the growing newborn is entirely bound to the energy of the mother, and possesses the 'energy' of both parents.

This is an overly simplified version obviously, but nowhere does 'energy' enter the fetus from anywhere else.

Also, energy enters a subsistent human through already energized food and water. Thus giving him the ability to do work, move, produce the necessary functions to survive, and do what humans do.

reply to post by Bedlam

Who says life has to have a point? So many things don't.

So many things do have a point. Plants provide oxygen and food for other species. Elements and molecules bond together to form various aspects of existence. Gravity allows everything to be bound. I look around and I see order and points and meaning.

It's the same issue with most serious studies of NDEs. They generally don't prove much, at least from a science aspect.

The skeptic's view of NDE's is already crumbling under the pressure of serious theories tha include the possibility of non-local consciousness, doctor's and scientist's whop themselves have had NDE's, who themselves take up serious studies on NDE's.

It was once pseudo and fringe to discuss when the majority of the "old guard" and "old way of thinking" within science, viewed consciousness itself as an area that is also pseudo and fringe. They were strict materialists and completely denied studying consciousness itself. Talk about not having bias ...they sure broke that rule.

Well now the times are changing. Consciousness and Nde's are seriously looked at and considered as possibilities. It's just a matter of time until they create instrumentation sensitive enough to measure consciousness outside of the body.

The question you're asking doesn't really make a lot of sense in the way you're asking it. There is no particular "life energy", that's a new age trope.

HE was speaking of, "When does consciousness enter the physical vessel". Same thing.

The "energy" would be glucose that the zygote's turning into ATP through the Krebs cycle. But there's no special energy that "enters into a person"

And you know this for sure how? You can't prove that it's only that. All of that is skeptic strict materialist stuff. So many people have experienced being consciousness outside of the body, pre-birth memories, and NDE's, and were just going to outright dismiss those because they don't fit the "old guard" materialist status quo? Well I don't thin so. Every phenomenon should be kept into consideration, and the these are constantly popping up, world wide, with every race, creed, gender, and times in history. It's not going away any time soon.

reply to post by dominicus


Dominicus,

I think using consciousness so haphazardly to describe a fundamental unified-something might be a bit confusing to those of a skeptical nature. Myself for example.

We know consciousness is "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings." In other words, it is a state of appearance; a notion conceived and applied to the way someone appears to be awake and conscious.

The appearance of being awake vs. asleep seems to be all that consciousness amounts to: a non-entity, nothing fundamental, and merely an idea regarding the way someone appears when they are aware (a verb) of their surroundings.

Consciousness or awareness or any word with the suffix 'ness' are abstract nouns, which represent only ideas or concepts.

Would it be possible to explain your experience using perhaps a different word than consciousness? Because to me, when you say 'I existed as pure consciousness,' I assume you existed as something to which you gave the name consciousness. But consciousness isn't a something, but the appearance of something doing the verb 'conscious'.

I know this might be confusing, but I ask this because I'd like to understand your experiences better.

ETA: In other words, how would you explain your experience to a nominalist?

Originally posted by fourthmeal
Oh I didn't realize that "Physics" was your religion. My mistake.

I thought we were talking about something free of religion, like consciousness and such.

Consciousness is all physics, baby. If it's a religion, it's one anyone can do, and it actually works. Unlike, say, prayer or meditation.

i would recommend anyone interested in this subject look into some of anthony peake's work

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by dominicus
So many things do have a point. Plants provide oxygen and food for other species. Elements and molecules bond together to form various aspects of existence. Gravity allows everything to be bound. I look around and I see order and points and meaning.

But "having a point" or "meaning" are value judgements.

Elements bonding together to make molecules are what elements do - it's electrostatic forces. It doesn't have 'meaning', per se, in that something intended that to happen. Gravity, the same. It's what happens when you have mass. It's not "meaning" in that it signifies something.

The skeptic's view of NDE's is already crumbling under the pressure of serious theories tha include the possibility of non-local consciousness, doctor's and scientist's whop themselves have had NDE's, who themselves take up serious studies on NDE's.

It'll crumble more, and in actuality, if people undergoing NDEs can actually demonstrate anything but subjective inputs. For what it's worth, I "coshared" an NDE, or rather, a DE, with a relative. I don't consider that to be anything but anecdotal either, in that it was totally subjective. However, I knew to the second when he died, got up, called the family to inform them that he had just passed, and back at HIS end of things, one of the last things he said was that I was with him in 'the light' - Tom's here with me.

But, it's not proof. Had we seen something that we could not have seen from a physical perspective, and it was correct in every detail, then hey, that might be a data point. Enough of them and you might have a case. But there's a remarkable lack of that sort of data.

It's just a matter of time until they create instrumentation sensitive enough to measure consciousness outside of the body.

You're voicing a desire on your part. You can't know that. "Consciousness" is a function of brain, so maybe you could measure brain activity to the extent you could say "there's a consciousness", but as far as some sort of ghost-a-mometer, no, I don't think you'll end up with one.

HE was speaking of, "When does consciousness enter the physical vessel". Same thing.

It occurs as the emergent behavior of a complex neural system, as that system develops in complexity and input data. It doesn't 'enter the physical vessel' from the outside.

And you know this for sure how? You can't prove that it's only that.

Sure you can. Basic biology. Go shoot yourself up with a few hundred units of insulin, drop your blood glucose to near zero, see how much consciousness you have.

It's not going away any time soon.

A pity. Wishful and/or magical thinking is the bane of the human condition.

We have no set answers as to life after death.

I will admit that I had an experience that changed my life. I was doing a type of meditation and met a being. He kind of read me the riot act about not living up to my potential. In no way did he say that I needed to join a specific religion. After that, I went back to school, got a degree in Engineering, got a great job, got married and have had a wonderful life.

I do not fear death. Either I will join with the reality that I had the opportunity to experience or there will be nothing. Either way, I've had a wonderful life.

reply to post by Wildbob77


I agree with this. Either there's nothing, and it doesn't matter, or you'll find out. Either way, it'll work itself out.

reply to post by Bedlam

Elements bonding together to make molecules are what elements do - it's electrostatic forces. It doesn't have 'meaning', per se, in that something intended that to happen.

Where is this intention coming from? Theoretically there should be nothing or pure chaos. No intention, no order.

It'll crumble more, and in actuality, if people undergoing NDEs can actually demonstrate anything but subjective inputs.

This is the point. We should be studying subjectivity, how it works, how inputs work, etc. Instead, science said the subject was pseudo/fringe, so we are only about 20-35 years old in the study of consciousness lagging behind everything else.

Subjectivity is how each individual operates and experiences reality, therefore it should be taken serious and included in all things science. The scientific method applies to strict materialist thought with rules that may not apply to all things. For example, some experiments will always have different outcomes, (which are shelved and labeled as anomalies) but should be considered that their outcomes will always be different by their very nature.

The Scientific method, therefor, will not necessarily apply to studying subjectivity/consciousness.

I don't consider that to be anything but anecdotal either, in that it was totally subjective.

This is the frame of mind that has to be gotten rid of. That of "subjective experience" having no weight. Yet we all experience reality subjectively. Even when in science and conducting experiments, it's various subjects, getting together to form objective conclusions.

The subject is key!!!!

Enough of them and you might have a case. But there's a remarkable lack of that sort of data.

Well of course there is a lack of data because of the bias. Considering we are at the very start in our scientific understanding of consciousness and the old guard that created a strict materialist, majority atheist bias for pretty much all of science, we're now at a point where the new blood is entering science with no bias, while the old guard dies off. It's going to take a while, but it will be proven inevitably, I'm so sure of it, I would be willing to bet everything I own, my whole family, and my very life on it. Though it may take a few hundred years to get there.

You're voicing a desire on your part. You can't know that.

It's not desire, cause I could care less what I want. It's an inevitability.

"Consciousness" is a function of brain, so maybe you could measure brain activity to the extent you could say "there's a consciousness", but as far as some sort of ghost-a-mometer, no, I don't think you'll end up with one. It occurs as the emergent behavior of a complex neural system, as that system develops in complexity and input data. It doesn't 'enter the physical vessel' from the outside.

That's all strict materialist "old guard" theory. It's on its way out. There are fresh new scientists discussing non-local consciousness and looking at the nano-particles of the brain as possibly the aspects which allow for consciousness to interact with physical matter. This ish is being taken very seriously in various. influential scientific circles.

Sure you can. Basic biology. Go shoot yourself up with a few hundred units of insulin, drop your blood glucose to near zero, see how much consciousness you have.

Doesn't prove anything. In various philosophies, one can increase the amount of remaining conscious through various experiences. Reminds me of when the beatles gave an indian guru a bunch of lsd and asked him how it was, but it didn't phase him because he was already in a high state of consciousness. I know another guy who reached a high state of consciousness and can literally drink gallons of spirits/shine/100+ proof liquors and he's perfectly fine and conscious. That would require a whole study of high level consciousness people and what influence insulin, etc has on them.

A pity. Wishful and/or magical thinking is the bane of the human condition.

Ego and animalism are the Bane of the human condition.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Dominicus, I think using consciousness so haphazardly to describe a fundamental unified-something might be a bit confusing to those of a skeptical nature. Myself for example. We know consciousness is "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings." In other words, it is a state of appearance; a notion conceived and applied to the way someone appears to be awake and conscious.

Well what I found in myself, through years of going within, observing myself, studying self, meditation, etc ...is that the Observer/Awareness/Consciousness ...whatever you want to call it (damn semantics) .....is non-local and does not depend on a physical body for its existence, has pre-existed prior to the body and entered into a fetus, can gain the ability to leave the body at will in advanced practitioners, and will continue after the body dies.

It is something Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, Various Greek and other part of the world philosophies have discussed, and goes back to the dawn of man. I found that in myself, it is so .... and have met many others who have found this to be true within them also.

The only ones who don't agree with this are the ones who have been kept from investigating this within themselves because of self created skepticism and bias bubbles. And science is playing catch up to all those who have realized that there is a soul and a source to it.

The appearance of being awake vs. asleep seems to be all that consciousness amounts to: a non-entity, nothing fundamental, and merely an idea regarding the way someone appears when they are aware (a verb) of their surroundings.

Not everyone loses consciousness when they are asleep. I can present you with various texts from various philosophies that discuss a state a person can reach of constant awareness, even in deep sleep. It's not all so black and white when we factor in what you would perhaps call anomalies.

Consciousness or awareness or any word with the suffix 'ness' are abstract nouns, which represent only ideas or concepts.

Ok, well we don't have to play this game for the sake of this conversation, cause I can go the Buddhist route and say that every word in existence is an abstract illusion, so then we end up asking ourselves; "then why ask anything? why even talk?"

Would it be possible to explain your experience using perhaps a different word than consciousness? Because to me, when you say 'I existed as pure consciousness,' I assume you existed as something to which you gave the name consciousness. But consciousness isn't a something, but the appearance of something doing the verb 'conscious'.

I was a unit of awareness, an observer, but non-local, non-physical. I had the ability to think, to be aware, and to communicate with other units. The communication was non-verbal. It was instead sending my perspective over to you and then you would experience directly my perspective, and then send yours.

Since then, by going within myself, I have located the center of awareness/observer and finding this center, has loosened this subjective "me" from the physical body. I can't necessarily do it, "at will" yet ...but this non-local me "pops out" sometimes at random times.

I have also experienced the "Source" of this awareness/observer/pure subject aspect of me. Akin to a drop of water falling into an ocean.... and have found quite a few others who have also discovered all of these things as well. On page 2, Night Star also mentioned she remembers pre-existing.

I know this might be confusing, but I ask this because I'd like to understand your experiences better. ETA: In other words, how would you explain your experience to a nominalist?

I read that nominalist but its like more definitions, more questions than answers, more bias. WHich one are you? :

One version denies the existence of universals—things that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things (e.g. strength, humanity). The other version specifically denies the existence of abstract objects—objects that do not exist in space and time.[2]

So now we have rules within which I have to explain by. No matter how I express it's not the same as the actual memory or experience of these things which in a sense are ineffable.

The thing is, I cannot deny the memory of pre-existence because it came prior to mind. It wasn't through "thought" which it came, but from some deeper place that circumvented mind, or delusions, or imagination, or any of that stuff, and I have since located that aspect of myself that has pre-existed and found it to be so.

So in my view, science is playing catch up, to eventually/inevitably prove all of this to be so

There are some threads on ATS on that subject in regards of how some cultures handle death, and I want to give some examples which, AT FIRST, seemed to me utterly bizarre, if not outright "sick". (If someone can give helping URLs and references, it would be great!)

* Example 1) would be the catacombs in Palermo, Italy, where people in the last century used to put their deceased "on display".

* The custom how some cultures used to display their dead, some even carry them around in some bizarre rituals. (There is this famous picture of a "corpse" said to be "resurrected" which is then led back to his grave. Sorry, mind-fart right now, i think it's somewhere in Asia.)

* More bizarre and, at first, "sick" seeming rituals, there would be 100s or 1000s of examples all around the planet.

Until I realized that my understanding how such customs seem to be "sick" stems from our own, western way how we deal with death in our own, modern culture. OBVIOUSLY, this was (and still is) handled entirely different in other cultures.

We could take those bizarre and "sick" seeming customs as evidence that those cultures have an entirely different view on death and what part it plays in life (!!) - and then it actually made me realize the question whether OUR view on death is actually the "not normal" one and what those cultures do (as bizarre it might seem) might be more an indication for a more "healthy" relationship with and acceptance of death.

In our culture, death is a BIG taboo where we, although we remember the deceased as they were in life, bury them. We can't and do not want to accept death as such, the fragility of life and the fact that everything physical at some point will be gone. And its this taboo what makes death so "mystical" and difficult to accept in our, western eyes

Whats to discuss? The only viewpoint we have is from the wrong side of the argument. No one on the other side is commenting. At least not that I've heard. Perhaps we can get John Edwards in here to offer their opinions on the subject. Til then, its like taxes. Unavoidable.

reply to post by solve


The hurt and pain for those left behind can be life changing and I have personally experienced this as many members have too. However, after working with the elderly for 30 years, I came to realise that death itself, is quite a simple matter. If we don't take into account the associated pain of the many varying terminal illnesses for which there are extremely good and modern medications -
The actual moment of death is simply - You take a breath as you do now - but the next one doesn't come! It really is as simple as that and at that point, all pain and suffering is gone - though I have seen the pain leaved the person at least a couple of days before death occurs.

I'm no expert at all but state what I myself have seen. Do not fear death itself - when that next breath does not come - you won't be aware of it. It is a moment! It is those whom you love and leave behind that feel it's pain and deep sorrow.

reply to post by flexy123


One compelling reason to get these beloveds in the ground or cremated asap can be found out by anyone willing to leave a chicken on their kitchen counter for a few days without refrigeration. Nuff said. Did these people not have noses ?