None of us here have died (and remember it). — Michael Ossipoff
Of course you never experience the time when your body has completely shut-down. Only your survivors do.
. — Michael Ossipoff
You’re taking a Literalist interpretation, when you speak of whether or not you’re still there at the time when, from the point of view of your survivors, you’re gone. — Michael Ossipoff
As I’ve pointed out in other threads, there’s no such thing as “oblivion”. You never arrive at or experience a time when you aren’t.
.
You’d agree that death is sleep, and that that sleep becomes deeper and deeper. …but with you never reaching a time when you aren’t. …though you become quite unconscious, in the sense that there isn’t waking-consciousness. — Michael Ossipoff
What kind of instrument-readings were you expecting? :D …with instruments like in Ghostbusters?
.
From the point of view of the investigators, the animals that died are quite dead.
. — Michael Ossipoff
Well, if someone is the kind of person who is expected to go to Hell, would he be hoping that there’s an afterlife? — Michael Ossipoff
In the East, there’s the expressed goal of an end to lives, a time when reincarnation isn’t needed and doesn’t happen. — Michael Ossipoff
At this forum, at least one poster has expressed that he doesn’t want there to be an afterlife or reincarnation.
So you’re greatly over-generalizing when you say that everyone is hoping for an afterlife. — Michael Ossipoff
You keep referring to the “Supernatural”. The Supernatural consists of contravention of physical law in scary movies about werewolves, vampires, murderous mummies, etc.
.
Usually it’s just the Materialists who speak of “The Supernatural” (contravention of physical law) and seem to want to attribute beliefs about that, to non-Materialists. — Michael Ossipoff
A computer couldn’t care less if it gets turned off. — Michael Ossipoff
But if the transphenomenality of consciousness was never created how could it end? — Blue Lux
What if there is no death? Only a disintegration? — Blue Lux
If you accept the philosophical (later scientific) assertion that, 'energy (life) can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed', then the bottom line becomes there's life before birth and after death. The better question would be: "What kind of life is it?" — BrianW
In earlier times, before 'science' became the by-word for everyone trying to explain reality, the weight of a person's theories were measured in how logical they were and not necessarily on proof. Science would like to refute that, but then I ask: "If science is okay with the postulate that 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed... ' does it mean it has tested all the energy in existence and therefore has undeniable proof of that? Literally, that's a resounding NO! So, then, perhaps the answer to 'life after death' is not in the proof we may or may not have, but in how logical it would be for the presence or absence of that life after death. — BrianW
I refuse to believe there is a beginning or an end to transphenomenal being. I think in death it disintegrates to reform into something else, and depending on the formation that manifests this transphenomenal soup, another separate identity forms. — Blue Lux
I think the theosophical explanation of reincarnation and evolution of life is better than the others. — BrianW
The unity I refer to is LIFE. It is the principle underlying everything we mean by truth or reality. Theosophy is more a mixture of the various religious principles. — BrianW
I think the scientific method is also a very good way of thinking, meaning; you don't try and prove your idea, you try and disprove it, by any means necessary. If you cannot disprove your idea, however much you try and however someone else tries to do it, it then becomes proven, rational and logic in it's form. — Christoffer
If everything is energy, then life and consciousness would also fall in that category. — BrianW
Also, thermodynamics does not prove that 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed'. If it can, show me. — BrianW
As to 'life after death', there is no definitive proof of what happens or doesn't happen but there is a logical argument that life (or the energy configuration commonly referred by that name) could not only be defined by the limits of the vibrations we interact with. — BrianW
I'm saying it is illogical to presume that life is limited within the rates of vibration of osmium (the densest solid - just googled it) and gamma rays (the highest frequency known yet). It is very logical to suppose lower and higher vibrations exist and in relation to lives like ours just as we now know there are gamma waves in the brain. And it may be that 'life after death' is just an energy relationship which we have not yet discovered. — BrianW
Science is not supposed to claim that what it knows is everything to know. Life after death is about possibilities not definitives. — BrianW
What you're referring to is not the scientific method. I think you're the one who's got things twisted. Are you implying Newton worked to disprove gravity? — BrianW
Once a principle is proved, it can never be disproved. As to the inability to disprove something, it is just that - inability. It does not become proof of anything. — BrianW
First, everything is energy, whether tangible or intangible (or an activity). Therefore, you need to check your definition. — BrianW
Second, you need to google 'the scientific method'. — BrianW
Karl Popper advised scientists to try to falsify hypotheses, i.e., to search for and test those experiments that seem most doubtful. Large numbers of successful confirmations are not convincing if they arise from experiments that avoid risk.
Third, just because consciousness doesn't fit your profile of science doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Does the mind exist? — BrianW
If everything was 'physical', do you think doctors wouldn't have dissected the brain and found the mind and psyche? — BrianW
It's why this discussion belongs in metaphysics or spiritual or religious philosophy. Else, we would be talking about the physical. — BrianW
All it does is caution people not to be too quick to judge without as much consideration as possible, a proposition which I'm deflecting back to you. — BrianW
I'm looking into consciousness the same way I would look into mind or psyche. If you can't, don't blame it on being un-scientific. — BrianW
Energy and matter is what makes up the physical universe, life and consciousness are not energy, they are product of matter and energy, something that evolved from it and they are driven by it, but they aren't it themselves. — Christoffer
As I described, the consciousness and the mind of a person exists because of the neurons, and the formation of neurons are the basis for the consciousness we have. This is the current scientific theory of the consciousness. — Christoffer
Have you heard of ego-death in a psychedelic experience? — Blue Lux
It's fine, I have no intentions with continuing a philosophical argument with someone who can't provide a proper argument. As I said, this is a philosophical forum, not a theological or spiritual, arguments need to keep their premisses and conclusions as clean s possible. Even when they don't work, in a dialectic, the opposing side is meant to improve your own argument by challenging it. However that requires proper deductive and inductive reasoning. A total misunderstanding of science and how basic physics and biology work as the foundation for the conclusion leads no where and after pointing out all the problems over and over there's still no improvements. I'm new here so I believed this place to feature a bit higher level dialectics than other places online, but it seems there's people here as well who can't properly do philosophical discourse. — Christoffer
Besides you wouldn't know higher level philosophy if it jumped up and bit you on the ass. — Sam26
Have you heard of DMT? Especially endogenous DMT?
Psilocin in magic mushrooms is 4-HO-DMT — Blue Lux
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.