What Lies Beyond: Exploring Different Beliefs on Life After Death

[Overdose]

Based on my experiences of altered states, and ghosts, yes I am pretty sure there is life after death. The idea of an 'end' is just limited 3 dimensional thinking, in the 4th and higher dimensions i don't see any reason why the mind should not still be preasent after we die. I think when we die our perception mearly shifts from a 3rd dimensional perspective to a 4th/5th dimensional perspective.
Also the idea that people who believe is life after death are just scared of death is weak, most days the idea of complete oblivion seems ten times more attractive than an eternity of existence. How ever what i would like is really neither here nor there...

 

[WolfSong]

Wow, so many interesting theories :). I'd like to start off by saying hello - I'm new to this board *waves*. I'm going to have to tread very carefully here, as this discussion can all too easily fall into the realms of pure religion...I'm hoping a theological discussion of some of the points raised is OK? Should be, seeing as I don't personally have any set religious beliefs :).

First off...is there life after death. Well, ignoring the fact that you'd have to define the term "life" (physical life, consciousness?) yeah, I do think there is life after death. I was open minded until I read a book called "The Scole Experiment". It was a scientific experiment conducted in the UK a few years back into the possibility of life after death and the results have been duplicated by other people using the same techniques all over the world. So yeah, I do believe in the possibility of life after death. I refuse to believe that consciousness, in it's entireity (until I'm proved otherwise) is merely an expression of chemical reactions in our brain.

Erazman said something along the lines of "no spirit would be able to comprehend something that is infinite"...that's a dangerous assumption to make. If you take Descares thought that "I think therefore I am", you can rightfully say that *you* cannot comprehend infinity, but it would be wrong to say that everyone else cannot because it is impossible for you to know whether they can or cannot. You can say that you *assume* that other people cannot comprehend infinity for various reasons based on empirical data, but you cannot guarantee it.

This becomes more apparent when you argue that spirits cannot comprehend infinity. Firstly you are implying here that spirits exist, which suggests another level of existence in itself, then you go onto assume that they cannot comprehend infinity. Where did you get this idea? For all you know it could be a false premise.

You've also said "TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING, THERE HAS TO BE AN EDGE, LIMIT, OR QUANTITY.
SINCE THE UNIVERSE IS INFINATE, THEN LIFE IS INFINATE.
THEREFORE, WE WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND IT."

First off, as far as I'm aware (and my physics is a little rusty here, so i could be wrong), the universe is not infinite - it merely loops back upon itself so it appears that way - that's why if we traveled far enough we'd end up right back where we started.

So, once again your foundational premise could be incorrect, and you could argue from David Hume's "is-ought gap.

a)The universe is infinite
b) Therefore life ought to be infinite

Where's the link? You're making an assumption.

As for people not understanding, I could dangerously tip-toe my way around the area of religious experience...the way people innately understand a feeling of wholeness, even if it is inexplicable in literary terms. I think the problem is scientists have been taught to think laterally and this teaching falls apart when you have to attempt to comprehend Quantum and Mechanical Physics.

Also, a lot of people see Religion and Science as polar opposites...just like science and parapsychology (don't get me started), but you'd actually get kore fulfilling answers if you combined relevant ideas from both.

And I'm sorry, I'm picking on Erazman a lot...mot intentionally, i might add :)

Bola - you said "I think that after death we cease to be conscious. Our brain and body decomposes, and by definition, the essence of us goes away".

What evidence do you have to support this (curious). Yes we experience physical decomposition, but that does not guarantee that we cease to exist, does it? But then define existence? It gets difficult...you could say that plants exist, and you'd be correct. They exist and then they cease to exist - fine. But as far as we know, plants are not conscious in the same way we are...I'm not suggesting there's physical life after death, merely that consciousness survives physical death and decomposition. I did do a related essay a while back entitled "We are merely physical beings. Discuss". Admittedly it was A-Level Religious Studies coursework, but the conclusion I came to was that ther was some level of existence post-mortem.

Again, dabbling in the religious side of things, you could manipulate Anslem's Ontological Argument - God exists, even if only in the mind because we can concieve of him. Therefore perhaps people survive, if not spiritually just as memories and then truly die when they are forgotten...existence as a memory is a type of existence just not a conscious one.

And this post has gotten ridiculously long, I apologise. Hope at least some of the stuff I've said is of use in this discussion :)

Amber

 

[merak]

welcome wolfsong! what is the scole experiment ? could not find anything on the net... if consciousness exists after death, where... does it exists or where do 'you' think it exists... ** [ UP DATE ] **I found a link to the article.when I got to the part, where one of them went into a trance,I quit reading..For me the experiment broke down at that point.

 

[olde drunk]

I believe that i am restating a prior post, but it continues to satisfy my logical mind.

at last count, this physical world (our galaxy) is a least 4 billion years old (possibly 8). how can our consciousness (awareness of being) only last 70 years? the ratio is absurd. it just doesn't make sense that we are here for a blink and gone.

everything that we observe has a continuous rebirth - even stars - why not souls??

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Lets get our viewpoints of what's after death... do u think its nothing, heaven, hell, etc... have u had personal experiences which strengthen your beliefs? What is after death?

i could ask what is before life (mine yours)? we can say that there's a similarity between before existing and after death both have uncertainty and both cannot empirically be tested.
for trying to measure what you are going to be you need to know which sperm from your father's 10^(who knows) sperms going to struct the particular egg of your mum, too much uncertainty that we human cannot test.
and for death there's simply death which we don't nothing of (we know the reason for death but we don't know what comes next if there is next).

 

[Loren Booda]

Does certainty with our conception help us over our uncertainty with death?

 

[Erazman]

I don't have kids, but i know that if i had one, i'd care for him/her so much that it wouldn't matter if my death meant the absolute destruction of my consciousness. Caring for the child so much, i'd be content with the feeling knowing that my child would continue existing, living and feeling even though I am gone.

at the same time though, i think consciousness is indeed part of the brain. But TRUE consciousness (the absolute feeling of BEING), is something bigger that can't be part of the brain. I have this intuitive feeling that there IS NOT a definate number of TRUE consciousness's in the world right now. Perhaps the "true consciousness" I am referring to is just 1. Perhaps this true consciousness is the ultimate self awareness of the universe itself that inflicts its self-awareness into life. Injects itself into its own evolution-created vessel. The more i think of this, the more right it feels. It would also explain how often man has felt "one with the universe".

 

[Gökhan]

Well destruction of consciousness is a nice phrase, but how can that happen, since we don't know if the consciousness we talk about is really matter-related (dependend on a living human body)?

But how can matter in any constellation or state simulate complex consciousness?
Consciousness is totally transcendent and superior to matter. It seems to me that Matter is just the necessary embodiment of consciousness, so that consciousness gets the necessary means of articulation and interaction. Matter makes existing consciousness visible and perceivable for humans, by social interaction for example.

 

[Rader]

It has often deeply been pondered by my "I", what happens to my self, its intellect, its knowledge. Will anyone or anything be known to me, or "I" to them, when "I" am not "I" anymore? Where does the knowing of my "I", which is its knowledge, go? Will the "I" of the me be recognizable when it no longer physcially exists and returns to whence it came?

 

[WolfSong]

Well destruction of consciousness is a nice phrase, but how can that happen, since we don't know if the consciousness we talk about is really matter-related (dependend on a living human body)?

But how can matter in any constellation or state simulate complex consciousness?
Consciousness is totally transcendent and superior to matter. It seems to me that Matter is just the necessary embodiment of consciousness, so that consciousness gets the necessary means of articulation and interaction. Matter makes existing consciousness visible and perceivable for humans, by social interaction for example.

Go take a look at Plato...he had some very interesting ideas along the lines of mind-body duality...or ust take a look at dualism, etc...that may help you out a bit. If you want I'll dig out some more philosophers/ideas :)

And whoever posted about the Scole Experiment...merak. How can you form an opinion if you didn't actually finish the article? ;). Not sure which article you got hold of...I'd recommend trying to track down the book. It has photographic evidence as well as testimonies from many scientists with varying areas of primary interest. In my opinion the experiment was conducted thoroughly and scientifically and the results should be considered valid. But then I'm a philosopher, not a scientist and even empiricism has it's flaws :)
Amber

 

[Gökhan]

Go take a look at Plato...he had some very interesting ideas along the lines of mind-body duality...or ust take a look at dualism, etc...that may help you out a bit. If you want I'll dig out some more philosophers/ideas :)

thank you WolfSong, I will try to have a look at them as to maybe get another perspective on it.
But you could have delivered some of these very important ideas too, if you have allready understood them...;-)
So we could discuss them right now, without leaving ideas to the great names of philosophy, which is often quiet a comfort of argumentation...;-)

 

[Erazman]

i really didnt mean to say the universe is infinate on the previous page. that's really not what i meant. i was typing faster than i was thinking. someone smack me over the head. i edited the post.

 

[VantagePoint72]

Well, the ideas put forth in special relativity seem to imply that there is no past and future, it's always there, events that we perceive to happen are eternally frozen in spacetime. This is the core of the prohibition of simultaneous events in all reference frames...unless the past and future are always there, it would be impossible for events simultaneous in one reference frame to not be simultaneous in another, as an event observed by one person and in the past can still yet have to pass for another person, being their future. So, if time doesn't "flow" like experience suggests (and if you've read any works by Brian Greene, yes these are ideas put forth by him) then what we call the present can only be defined by our consciousness. It's our consciousness that moves through the fabric of spacetime, passing from event to another. So it seems that our consciousness is beyond the laws of physics and isn't quite bound with our bodies in the way some people suggest. For the record, I'm a Christian and believe that heaven or hell awaits our spirits after death. For me, our consciousness is because of our soul (and I know many of you will disagree, I'm not looking to start an argument, just stating what I believe.) In any case, as long as our consciousness is confined to the boundaries of spacetime and the Universe as we know it, knowing what comes after death can only be a matter of faith (and I use the word generally, not referring to any specific belief or lack thereof.) Time, the very thing the issue is based upon, will tell.

 

[dave19903652]

My thoughts on death are very mixed but in quick I think 3 things happen to you when you die and I might as well put it on a karma scale
Really good ---- heaven
reincarnation ---- human
----- animal
------plant
Really bad------- hell

When you reach heaven it can be permanent but it's your choice you can choose to reenter to help the world. When someone reaches enlightement like the Buddha then they will become an angel etc., a higher order of being.

 

[merak]

My thoughts on death are very mixed but in quick I think 3 things happen to you when you die and I might as well put it on a karma scale
Really good ---- heaven
reincarnation ---- human
----- animal
------plant
Really bad------- hell

When you reach heaven it can be permanent but it's your choice you can choose to reenter to help the world. When someone reaches enlightement like the Buddha then they will become an angel etc., a higher order of being.

wow! I could have been a "Hemp" plant... in a past life . some or many seeker's could have "inhaled me" to reach enlightment..thats so cool. :rofl:

 

[dave19903652]

wow! I could have been a "Hemp" plant... in a past life . some or many seeker's could have "inhaled me" to reach enlightment..thats so cool. :rofl:

You can't reach enlightement by taking drugs. It is after all one of the main rules in buddhism not to cloud your mind by drugs or alcohol. When you take drugs you halucinate not meditate.

 

[Overdose]

You can't reach enlightement by taking drugs. It is after all one of the main rules in buddhism not to cloud your mind by drugs or alcohol. When you take drugs you halucinate not meditate.

if buddah said that then it must be true.