Afterlife

[joyrex]

When you die, I believe your mind will cease to exist. Only the body remains, inanimated. There will be many newborn babies.. at about the same time. You will probably have one of those new consciousnesses.

Well, it's not actually you and it has nothing to do with the you that has died.. but an equal amount of 'self' that you have had, will be given to each newborn baby. 'You' will live again and experience life.

We are already in the afterlife. Actually, it's inseparable from the life itself. As long as life exists, this will go on as an endless cycle.

For long I have pondered about whether there are souls or afterlife in another form of existence. But now that I've thought about it from this point of view which seems most probable for me, I almost feel as if I no longer fear death.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by joyrex
When you die, I believe your mind will cease to exist. Only the body remains, inanimated. There will be many newborn babies.. at about the same time. You will probably have one of those new consciousnesses.
I'm confused. Who receives the consciousness, you or the newborn baby? In what way will the "recycled" consciousness resemble the old one? Will it have memories or emotions or anything resembling the previous owner? Or will it by like an erased diskette with nothing to tell about what was on it previously?

Originally posted by joyrex
Well, it's not actually you and it has nothing to do with the you that has died.. but an equal amount of 'self' that you have had, will be given to each newborn baby. 'You' will live again and experience life.
If it has nothing to do with "you" then it is not "you" in any sense of the word. What is "self" if it contains nothing of "you"? How can you distinguish a baby with a recycled "self" from one with a brand new one? (There must be some new ones, because we are increasing our population all the time).

Originally posted by joyrex
We are already in the afterlife. Actually, it's inseparable from the life itself. As long as life exists, this will go on as an endless cycle.

But you can tell nothing about your previous life? How is this different from having a totally new life? Time never repeats itself. Why should souls?

Originally posted by joyrex
For long I have pondered about whether there are souls or afterlife in another form of existence. But now that I've thought about it from this point of view which seems most probable for me, I almost feel as if I no longer fear death.
It sounds to me as if you are terribly afraid of death. I mean real death, where nothing of your "self" survives. So frightened that you must comfort yourself with a totally implausible scenario in order to assure yourself that you don't "completely die". If you truly weren't afraid of death, then you wouldn't need to do this.

But if you must have something to survive you, let it be your ideas, or "memes (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?memes) " if you will. Some people, like Shakespeare, have ideas and words that have survived long after their deaths. In my mind, that is true immortality.

Or as
Edgar Lee Masters said: (http://www.litrix.com/spoonriv/spoon226.htm)
Immortality is not a gift,
Immortality is an achievement;
And only those who strive mightily
Shall possess it.

[Wile E. Coyote]

If you are somehow implying that we live on through others, such as the children we raise and the people we affect throughout our lives, then I agree with you.

If you are saying that newborns are born with a part of me, then I would have to disagree.

Stick to the former philosophy. It is undeniably true.

[joyrex]

to Tricky

Sorry if I was a bit unclear, it's so common to me.. :)

There are no souls, nothing from us will remain after death (only atoms of our body). Nothing gets recycled from the self / ego / I / whatever. Consciousness will not be sent nor received.

I was just contemplating on the issue that in the same manner we now are alive and have consciousness, everyone who is born will have it too. 'I' will experience life again.. in the same sense, although it's not me..

This is what I meant by "an equal amount of self".

On the contrary to your interpretation, I am quite certain that nothing of me will survive after death, death will be complete.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote
If you are saying that newborns are born with a part of me, then I would have to disagree.
Well, maybe some of your DNA. Sorta.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by joyrex
was a bit unclear, it's so common to me.. :)

There are no souls, nothing from us will remain after death (only atoms of our body). Nothing gets recycled from the self / ego / I / whatever. Consciousness will not be sent nor received.

I was just contemplating on the issue that in the same manner we now are alive and have consciousness, everyone who is born will have it too. 'I' will experience life again.. in the same sense, although it's not me..

This is what I meant by "an equal amount of self".

On the contrary to your interpretation, I am quite certain that nothing of me will survive after death, death will be complete.
This seems self-contradictory. If nothing of you survives, then how can you say " 'I' will experience life again"? Doesn't that 'I' have to survive? If not, how can it experience life again? It is possible that a few of your molecules will eventually be incorporated into future humans. Maybe several or many future humans, but I don't see how you could possibly call those molecules 'you'.

It sounds a bit like "the memory of water" that homeopaths claim.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I think what joyrex is getting at (feel free to correct me if I'm off here, joy) is that there will always be some entity being born to replace you which will grow to consider itself "I." Not that that "I" and your "I" have anything whatsoever to do with each other, just that there will be another "I." (until sentient life ceases for whatever reason) I have a friend who thinks along these same lines. I don't really see it as anything more than a rather odd way of stating "Life goes on." But if it helps, it helps, I guess.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by joyrex

When you die, I believe your mind will cease to exist. Only the body remains, inanimated. There will be many newborn babies.. at about the same time. You will probably have one of those new consciousnesses.

Well, it's not actually you and it has nothing to do with the you that has died.. but an equal amount of 'self' that you have had, will be given to each newborn baby. 'You' will live again and experience life.

We are already in the afterlife. Actually, it's inseparable from the life itself. As long as life exists, this will go on as an endless cycle.

For long I have pondered about whether there are souls or afterlife in another form of existence. But now that I've thought about it from this point of view which seems most probable for me, I almost feel as if I no longer fear death. What about the nature of cause and effect which we understand so well within our psyche? Does this sensation just magically disappear when we die? Or, is it possible that it continues on through the "Karma" we experience in the afterlife?

Also, do radio waves exist outside of a radio? Then perhaps this is a good indication that we may not be alone. :)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What about the nature of cause and effect which we understand so well within our psyche? Does this sensation just magically disappear when we die? Or, is it possible that it continues on through the "Karma" we experience in the afterlife?
Actually, the "magic" would be if they continued. Heart stops. Respiration stops. Metabolism stops, but psyche "magically" continues? You can believe in magic if you like, but don't speak of it as if magic was real.

To answer the question in your sig line.

So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go?
We don't go anywhere. We stop.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Also, do radio waves exist outside of a radio? Then perhaps this is a good indication that we may not be alone. :)
Again with the radio analogy? Believe me, this was discussed long before you got to these boards, and you have added nothing new. It is a false analogy used by "believers" everywhere, and it doesn't work for you any better than it does for them. Radio waves can be shown to exist. Souls cannot. It is that simple.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Tricky
Again with the radio analogy?

No, now he has reversed the argument. He says that since radio waves exist without radios, then this means "we are not alone".

:dl:

[joyrex]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
I think what joyrex is getting at (feel free to correct me if I'm off here, joy) is that there will always be some entity being born to replace you which will grow to consider itself "I." Not that that "I" and your "I" have anything whatsoever to do with each other, just that there will be another "I." (until sentient life ceases for whatever reason) I have a friend who thinks along these same lines. I don't really see it as anything more than a rather odd way of stating "Life goes on." But if it helps, it helps, I guess. Yes that it pretty much it.

Essentially in a nutshell:

I am.
After I die, there will be other beings born who can also say,
"I am" - or express any other form of self-awareness, if they don't have language.

That is the connection and the continuum.

[joyrex]

Originally posted by Tricky

This seems self-contradictory. If nothing of you survives, then how can you say " 'I' will experience life again"? Doesn't that 'I' have to survive? If not, how can it experience life again? It is possible that a few of your molecules will eventually be incorporated into future humans. Maybe several or many future humans, but I don't see how you could possibly call those molecules 'you'.Maybe I approached this whole thing from a wrong direction, I had difficulties to express my point..

This 'I' is the experience of "I am".

My molecules are beside the point. :D

[El Greco]

Originally posted by joyrex
I am.
After I die, there will be other beings born who can also say,
"I am" - or express any other form of self-awareness, if they don't have language.

Probably, unless a nuclear war or a comet destroys all life on Earth, or we have a really hard ice age etc... :p

[Tricky]

Originally posted by joyrex
Maybe I approached this whole thing from a wrong direction, I had difficulties to express my point..

This 'I' is the experience of "I am".

My molecules are beside the point. :D
Oh. Well I apologize for my confusion.

Yes, I too wish to see more humans experience the "I am" sensation. To that end, I try to do my best to make sure we take care of the only known habitat for humans. But we have only been on this earth for a short while, geologically speaking, and we aren't doing such a good job of maintaining our environment. Unless things change, I fear there won't be too many more millenia with humans getting that "I am" rush. I hope I am wrong.

[joyrex]

And from an opposite point of view..

We are the afterlife of those who have gone before us.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by joyrex
And from an opposite point of view..

We are the afterlife of those who have gone before us.
Or as those great musician/philosophers, Urian Heep (http://www.metrolyrics.com/lyrics/54174/Uriah_Heep/Circle_Of_Hands/) said;
Today is only yesterday's tomorrow.

(Also today is the first day of the rest of your life, so have a nice day.:) )

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

Actually, the "magic" would be if they continued. Heart stops. Respiration stops. Metabolism stops, but psyche "magically" continues? You can believe in magic if you like, but don't speak of it as if magic was real.As if the miracle of life wasn't magical enough?


To answer the question in your sig line.

We don't go anywhere. We stop.Says you?


Again with the radio analogy? Believe me, this was discussed long before you got to these boards, and you have added nothing new. It is a false analogy used by "believers" everywhere, and it doesn't work for you any better than it does for them. Radio waves can be shown to exist. Souls cannot. It is that simple. Only because it hasn't been demonstrated scientifically, yet? Everything vibrates and sends out signals, even brains. And just because we haven't been able to ascertain a certain frequency or, whatever it is it entails, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


Besides, as I mentioned in the other thread, "we" are the radios, therefore there must a means by which to "tune in" (and exmanine it) ... as many have already claimed to have done.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by El Greco

No, now he has reversed the argument. He says that since radio waves exist without radios, then this means "we are not alone".

:dl: It's very clear to me that spirits do exist.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iacchus
As if the miracle of life wasn't magical enough?

Nope. Not magical at all. We are learning more about how it works every day, and none of it is magic.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Says you?
Says every single piece of evidence ever collected.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Only because it hasn't been demonstrated scientifically, yet? Everything vibrates and sends out signals, even brains. And just because we haven't been able to ascertain a certain frequency or, whatever it is it entails, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Your criteria for accepting unproven phenomena is truly lax. Do you accept everything that you are not personally able to prove wrong as being true? It would seem so, based on your posts here. Have you even got a clue what critical thinking (http://www.csicop.org/si/9809/weird.html) is?

Originally posted by Iacchus
Besides, as I mentioned in the other thread, "we" are the radios, therefore there must a means by which to "tune in" (and exmanine it) ... as many have already claimed to have done.
Yes, you have mentioned it numerous times, and in spite of the fact that it has been logically demolished, you continue to make the same claim. But it doesn't matter what people claim to have done. People claim all sorts of bizarre things, like being abducted by extraterrestrials. The only thing that matters is what you can give evidence for, and you have given none to support your psychoceramic contentions.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

It's very clear to me that spirits do exist.-Iaccus






prove it, win a million$.

[DarkMagician]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It's very clear to me that spirits do exist. Yeah, I'm seeing the spirits of Jack Daniels and Captain Morgan right now.

[TheERK]

Originally posted by joyrex
When you die, I believe your mind will cease to exist. Only the body remains, inanimated. There will be many newborn babies.. at about the same time. You will probably have one of those new consciousnesses.

Well, it's not actually you and it has nothing to do with the you that has died.. but an equal amount of 'self' that you have had, will be given to each newborn baby. 'You' will live again and experience life.

We are already in the afterlife. Actually, it's inseparable from the life itself. As long as life exists, this will go on as an endless cycle.

For long I have pondered about whether there are souls or afterlife in another form of existence. But now that I've thought about it from this point of view which seems most probable for me, I almost feel as if I no longer fear death.

Coincidentally, this is almost exactly the same way I view the 'afterlife.' I've heard someone call it natural reincarnation before, but that's probably unnecessarily mystical and misleading.

Another way to put it is that you're tricked into feeling consciousness and self now, and as long as people are being born, you're going to be tricked into it later. Admittedly, it is difficult to express in words, but I'm almost sure what joyrex is saying is exactly the same thing I think.

[joyrex]

Originally posted by TheERK
Coincidentally, this is almost exactly the same way I view the 'afterlife.' I've heard someone call it natural reincarnation before, but that's probably unnecessarily mystical and misleading.Maybe, but then again I feel that there should be a term for this insight at hand.. after all it's quite an enlightening and liberating thought, wouldn't you agree? "Natural reincarnation" would be okay as long as at the same time it would be explained that there's nothing supernatural or even spiritual about it. It's just the way life is - although I guess not everyone has seen it this way before.
Another way to put it is that you're tricked into feeling consciousness and self now, and as long as people are being born, you're going to be tricked into it later. Admittedly, it is difficult to express in words, but I'm almost sure what joyrex is saying is exactly the same thing I think. Quite right, this is yet another way to express the idea.

[espoirpaz]

is it true that humans are the only animals that realize the fact that someday we will die?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by espoirpaz
is it true that humans are the only animals that realize the fact that someday we will die?
I don't believe so, although it is more of a self-preservation instinct. Trappers sometimes find where a captured animal will chew it's own leg off in order to escape death. Numerous animals are known to go off to find a private place to die. You may have had pets who did this. Perhaps humans are the only ones who think of it years in advance (long enough to build pyramids!), but it's really hard to tell what animals "realize" due to the communication barrier.

[espoirpaz]

Perhaps humans are the only ones who think of it years in advance (long enough to build pyramids!), but it's really hard to tell what animals "realize" due to the communication barrier.

yes, i think that realization means that at one point or another, one would reflect on it. I think an animal that chews its leg in order to escape a trap is acting more on natural instinct, knowing it's in danger, rather than being fully aware that it could die.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by espoirpaz
yes, i think that realization means that at one point or another, one would reflect on it. I think an animal that chews its leg in order to escape a trap is acting more on natural instinct, knowing it's in danger, rather than being fully aware that it could die.
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that they can't conceive of it. After all, there are quite a number of humans (several on these boards) who are not fully aware that they will die. They seem to think that their "mind" or "soul" or some such thing will somehow survive death, because they simply cannot comprehend total and complete death. To escape death, they chew off a bit of their brain, believing that between giving up logic and giving up life, they can do without logic.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

Nope. Not magical at all. We are learning more about how it works every day, and none of it is magic. Why don't you stick with your tinker toys. :p


Says every single piece of evidence ever collected. Do you mean like when birds collect bugs to feed to their young? That it's evidence of the little chickies when they grow up? Hey isn't it amazing that birds have the naturally ability to fly and we're don't? Doesn't that sound the least bit magical to you? While I'm sure you might feel differently when you took your first hang-glider ride ...


Your criteria for accepting unproven phenomena is truly lax. Do you accept everything that you are not personally able to prove wrong as being true? It would seem so, based on your posts here. Have you even got a clue what critical thinking (http://www.csicop.org/si/9809/weird.html) is?Clinical schminical. Is this all you understand?


Yes, you have mentioned it numerous times, and in spite of the fact that it has been logically demolished, you continue to make the same claim. But it doesn't matter what people claim to have done. People claim all sorts of bizarre things, like being abducted by extraterrestrials. The only thing that matters is what you can give evidence for, and you have given none to support your psychoceramic contentions. Yes, and tell that to the microscopic mites that exist on my eyelids that I'm "totally" unaware of. Does that mean they don't exist then?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by DarkMagician
Yeah, I'm seeing the spirits of Jack Daniels and Captain Morgan right now. You know, I almost find this to be an acceptable answer. :D

[Interesting Ian]

If people want to explore some of the evidence suggestive of survival this (http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/home.htm) is a good web site.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why don't you stick with your tinker toys. :p
Oh, my! How brilliantly clever you are! You are almost as adept at riposte as you are at answering straight questions.:eek: I'll bet you slay them in the third grade.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you mean like when birds collect bugs to feed to their young? That it's evidence of the little chickies when they grow up? Hey isn't it amazing that birds have the naturally ability to fly and we're don't? Doesn't that sound the least bit magical to you? While I'm sure you might feel differently when you took your first hang-glider ride ...
Why no, come to think of it, it doesn't sound magical. It sounds like evolution. I realize that such a concept is far beyond your limited cranial capacity, but there is a great deal of fossil evidence that shows how birds came to be creatures of the air. None of it is magical.

Tell me, do you affix the label "magic" to everything you don't understand? If so, then you probably use the word a lot.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Clinical schminical. Is this all you understand?
Critical, not clinical. Your reading skills nearly match your debating skills. Add in that rapier wit, and you are the whole load.

But I take it from your refusal to reply that you do indeed believe almost anything that woo-woos tell you. It's almost as if you believe that evidence for something is actually bad.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, and tell that to the microscopic mites that exist on my eyelids that I'm "totally" unaware of. Does that mean they don't exist then?
You must not be totally unaware of them or else you wouldn't know about them eh? And why are you aware of them? Because scientists, using sophisticated devices have shown they exist. You accept scientific evidence without question in this case, but you deny it when it conflicts with your philosophy. Where did you learn such duplicity? Was it from your loving God that tortures innocent people?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

Oh, my! How brilliantly clever you are! You are almost as adept at riposte as you are at answering straight questions.:eek: I'll bet you slay them in the third grade.Sort of like trying to catch a fish with your bare hands huh? Sorry, there's just some things I can't seriously. ;)


Why no, come to think of it, it doesn't sound magical. It sounds like evolution. I realize that such a concept is far beyond your limited cranial capacity, but there is a great deal of fossil evidence that shows how birds came to be creatures of the air. None of it is magical. Haw hee haw! Haw hee haw! :D


Tell me, do you affix the label "magic" to everything you don't understand? If so, then you probably use the word a lot.That would be too obliging to say now wouldn't it?


Critical, not clinical. Your reading skills nearly match your debating skills. Add in that rapier wit, and you are the whole load.Yes, all this "clinical" analysis crap. Whatever ...


But I take it from your refusal to reply that you do indeed believe almost anything that woo-woos tell you. It's almost as if you believe that evidence for something is actually bad.I'm just as much a skeptic as you are except I do know what I'm talking about. ;)


You must not be totally unaware of them or else you wouldn't know about them eh? And why are you aware of them? Because scientists, using sophisticated devices have shown they exist. You accept scientific evidence without question in this case, but you deny it when it conflicts with your philosophy. Where did you learn such duplicity? Was it from your loving God that tortures innocent people? Ignorance is no excuse. And yes, my not knowing about the mites would be comparable to science not knowing about God. ;)

Let me ask you something. Does that avatar of yours make you feel like a bully? Because it sure comes across that way. :p

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Sort of like trying to catch a fish with your bare hands huh? Sorry, there's just some things I can't seriously. ;)
Reality appears to be one of them.
Originally posted by Iacchus
Haw hee haw! Haw hee haw! :D
Ah, the sound of a donkey braying. Thank you for establishing your credentials a person willing to engage in rational discussion.
Originally posted by Iacchus
That would be too obliging to say now wouldn't it?
Nope, just honest. Far too honest for you.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, all this "clinical" analysis crap. Whatever ...
In other words, "Don't bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up."

Originally posted by Iacchus
I'm just as much a skeptic as you are except I do know what I'm talking about. ;)
Uh huh. I wonder how many other of the skeptics here agree with your self analysis?

Originally posted by Iacchus
Ignorance is no excuse.
Then what is your excuse?

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yes, my not knowing about the mites would be comparable to science not knowing about God. ;)
If you claimed to know about the mites without any evidence whatsoever, people would rightly think you a fool. The same applies to claims about God. Perhaps some day science will perfect a "God-detector", but I'm not holding my breath.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Let me ask you something. Does that avatar of yours make you feel like a bully? Because it sure comes a-"cross" that way.

The Tick only uses his powers for good.:p

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

Reality appears to be one of them.Which one?

Thank you for establishing your credentials a person willing to engage in rational discussion. Rational smashional ... :D


Nope, just honest. Far too honest for you.No, dense.


In other words, "Don't bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up."Some things you just have to see for yourself.


Uh huh. I wonder how many other of the skeptics here agree with your self analysis?And why should I care? I just don't believe in giving things to people which don't belong to them. :p


Then what is your excuse?For what?


If you claimed to know about the mites without any evidence whatsoever, people would rightly think you a fool. The same applies to claims about God. Perhaps some day science will perfect a "God-detector", but I'm not holding my breath. Excuse you?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

The Tick only uses his powers for good.:p You're just a bullying blood sucker and we all know it. :p

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iacchus
You're just a bullying blood sucker and we all know it. :p
Only against the forces of evil.:D

[DarkMagician]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Which one?

Rational smashional ... :D


No, dense.


Some things you just have to see for yourself.


And why should I care? I just don't believe in giving things to people which don't belong to them. :p


For what?


Excuse you? Y'know, if you're going to talk about yourself, you could choose between first, second, and third person and stick with it.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

Only against the forces of evil.:D Evil schmeevil huh? ... ;)

[joyrex]

I suppose at least few here agree with my notion of "survival of self-awareness in death through individuals to-be-born" - I hope that's a sufficient and simple enough way to put it - also called "natural reincarnation"..

So based on this idea, would it be fair to say that we have in fact a "next life" awaiting for us?

[joyrex]

Would you have "faith" in this idea of afterlife?

Do you think it's the most probable explanation?

I think this is one of the most important realizations an individual can have.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by joyrex
I suppose at least few here agree with my notion of "survival of self-awareness in death through individuals to-be-born" - I hope that's a sufficient and simple enough way to put it - also called "natural reincarnation"..

So based on this idea, would it be fair to say that we have in fact a "next life" awaiting for us?
I still can't get a handle on what you mean by this. Sometimes it seems you are just saying "life goes on", other times you seem to be proposing an actual "survival of self-awareness". I agree with the former, but not the latter. I don't think human self-awareness survives death. I think it is created every time a new human mind arises and is destroyed every time that human mind dies. Notice that I say "arises" rather than "begins", because when your life begins (at conception) you are in no way self-aware. Your self-awareness increases as your neural system matures.

You have an interesting way of looking at things, Joyrex, but I cannot say that you have demonstrated any convincing evidence for any sort of "next life" for a given individual.

[joyrex]

Originally posted by Tricky
I still can't get a handle on what you mean by this. Sometimes it seems you are just saying "life goes on", other times you seem to be proposing an actual "survival of self-awareness". I agree with the former, but not the latter. I don't think human self-awareness survives death. I think it is created every time a new human mind arises and is destroyed every time that human mind dies. Notice that I say "arises" rather than "begins", because when your life begins (at conception) you are in no way self-aware. Your self-awareness increases as your neural system matures.This is an aspect I ran into in another discussion, which I forgot to consider before. So, the survival is an erraneous term since it would imply that there are no interrupts to the experience of "I am" (from the point of view of an external observer). This is clearly false as you demonstrated.

However, this merely refines my idea rather than falsifies it - since from the point of view of the individual, these interruptions cannot be separated nor detected, because there is no awareness of them. This could be compared to being in dreamless sleep or amnesia (which are different from "natural reincarnation" only in the sense that the individual stays the same - and alive inbetween). Only indications we have of time passing between falling asleep and waking up are the changes we notice in ourselves and the environment while waking up compared to the state before falling asleep.

I found yet another point of view that is crucial in understanding my idea, I think:

"Awareness of existence is always bound to the individual."

I have had some difficulties in mediating this thought of mine to others too - then again some seem to understand it immediately.. I'm beginning to think it actually requires some sort of enlightenment to understand it :D

Maybe TheERK could help us out. :)

[joyrex]

I'm a bit unsure why I suddenly have this burning obsession to teach my thought to everyone, or at least converse about it. It seems so important to me - it gives my life a meaning and a new perspective. And when I see that people such as TheERK can understand it, it gives me hope.. so that everyone could understand it.

Then when I die, and after that "I wake up in the next life to my self-awareness" (quite a horrible way to put it I know), this idea could be teached to me and I could have the peace of mind I have attained right now when I understand it.

[joyrex]

As long as there exists self-aware life,

there will be a witness to the world from the point of view of the individual.

I think that sums it up, hopefully! :D

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by joyrex
When you die, I believe your mind will cease to exist. Only the body remains, inanimated. There will be many newborn babies.. at about the same time. You will probably have one of those new consciousnesses.

Well, it's not actually you and it has nothing to do with the you that has died.. but an equal amount of 'self' that you have had, will be given to each newborn baby. 'You' will live again and experience life.

We are already in the afterlife. Actually, it's inseparable from the life itself. As long as life exists, this will go on as an endless cycle.

For long I have pondered about whether there are souls or afterlife in another form of existence. But now that I've thought about it from this point of view which seems most probable for me, I almost feel as if I no longer fear death.

Wow!

I just came into this thread, this is very close to the buddhist idea of karma and transmission of acts!


We are already in the afterlife. Actually, it's inseparable from the life itself. As long as life exists, this will go on as an endless cycle.


Bravo!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Tricky

I'm confused. Who receives the consciousness, you or the newborn baby? In what way will the "recycled" consciousness resemble the old one? Will it have memories or emotions or anything resembling the previous owner? Or will it by like an erased diskette with nothing to tell about what was on it previously?


If it has nothing to do with "you" then it is not "you" in any sense of the word. What is "self" if it contains nothing of "you"? How can you distinguish a baby with a recycled "self" from one with a brand new one? (There must be some new ones, because we are increasing our population all the time).



But you can tell nothing about your previous life? How is this different from having a totally new life? Time never repeats itself. Why should souls?


It sounds to me as if you are terribly afraid of death. I mean real death, where nothing of your "self" survives. So frightened that you must comfort yourself with a totally implausible scenario in order to assure yourself that you don't "completely die". If you truly weren't afraid of death, then you wouldn't need to do this.

But if you must have something to survive you, let it be your ideas, or "memes (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?memes) " if you will. Some people, like Shakespeare, have ideas and words that have survived long after their deaths. In my mind, that is true immortality.

Or as
Edgar Lee Masters said: (http://www.litrix.com/spoonriv/spoon226.htm)


I most humbley submit my awe and respect to the elightened one! Most Venerable Tick!

:Bow:

Two posts and already all the wisdom of the elightened ones is presented.

Kaon on!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by joyrex
to Tricky

Sorry if I was a bit unclear, it's so common to me.. :)

There are no souls, nothing from us will remain after death (only atoms of our body). Nothing gets recycled from the self / ego / I / whatever. Consciousness will not be sent nor received.

I was just contemplating on the issue that in the same manner we now are alive and have consciousness, everyone who is born will have it too. 'I' will experience life again.. in the same sense, although it's not me..

This is what I meant by "an equal amount of self".

On the contrary to your interpretation, I am quite certain that nothing of me will survive after death, death will be complete.

Be ye lamps unto yourself!

I will post just a little less, Praise Coyote!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What about the nature of cause and effect which we understand so well within our psyche? Does this sensation just magically disappear when we die? Or, is it possible that it continues on through the "Karma" we experience in the afterlife?

Also, do radio waves exist outside of a radio? Then perhaps this is a good indication that we may not be alone. :)

No man is an island. He is more like a penisula!

Jefferson Airplane

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by joyrex
Maybe, but then again I feel that there should be a term for this insight at hand.. after all it's quite an enlightening and liberating thought, wouldn't you agree? "Natural reincarnation" would be okay as long as at the same time it would be explained that there's nothing supernatural or even spiritual about it. It's just the way life is - although I guess not everyone has seen it this way before.
Quite right, this is yet another way to express the idea.

The buddha is quite a sceptic, you have stated the dharma very well!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Tricky

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that they can't conceive of it. After all, there are quite a number of humans (several on these boards) who are not fully aware that they will die. They seem to think that their "mind" or "soul" or some such thing will somehow survive death, because they simply cannot comprehend total and complete death. To escape death, they chew off a bit of their brain, believing that between giving up logic and giving up life, they can do without logic.

The god of laughter is incarnate,

All Hail Tricky!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by joyrex
I suppose at least few here agree with my notion of "survival of self-awareness in death through individuals to-be-born" - I hope that's a sufficient and simple enough way to put it - also called "natural reincarnation"..

So based on this idea, would it be fair to say that we have in fact a "next life" awaiting for us?

Well Mr Shaven Wookie, master of enlightenment, the buddha asks just one question upon which the rest devolves.

Where is the self?

There is nothing that is the self, all things we call self are transient and ephemeral, therefore the self is an illusion.

The buddha stated that all things are interdependant and unique, the lamp that shines in a room is the creator of the light in the room. Does the flame exist while the lamp is out?

Consiousness does not carry from one heap to another.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by joyrex
I'm a bit unsure why I suddenly have this burning obsession to teach my thought to everyone, or at least converse about it. It seems so important to me - it gives my life a meaning and a new perspective. And when I see that people such as TheERK can understand it, it gives me hope.. so that everyone could understand it.

Then when I die, and after that "I wake up in the next life to my self-awareness" (quite a horrible way to put it I know), this idea could be teached to me and I could have the peace of mind I have attained right now when I understand it.

But a lamp may light many different rooms, so is the lamp the light that shines in the room?

Maybe you were the buddha in a former life, acording to the buddha only thoughts and acts are transmitted in the world that we percieve.

But when I read a book, do I have the same experience of the person who read the book before that I called me?

How do you know that you are you?

Everything you are is transitory, you may share the same thought as someone, in the same place but the buddha taught that everything is unique and interedependant. A person may have the same thoughtsa s you but they can never be you.

[joyrex]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Where is the self?It is the part of my awareness that merely witnesses. I can distinguish it, can't you?
There is nothing that is the self, all things we call self are transient and ephemeral, therefore the self is an illusion.I dunno. Why can't self be just a label for some bunch of braincells which gives us ability to say, "I am me"? So what if it is an illusion (emergent perhaps)? We use it every day, you and me, everyone.
Consiousness does not carry from one heap to another.True, but as I explained (illusion of survival) it gives such an impression.

[joyrex]

When we die and the last drop of awareness if gone from us, the focus of the witness changes to an infant that is about to have it's first sparkle of awareness.

Remember, there is nothing supernatural about this.. I just can't explain it in any other way :D

I know I cannot adequately explain why I feel this must be so. It's like nothing about human existence would make sense if the POV was gone for good.

[joyrex]

From http://homepage.mac.com/morgannels/dogma/C1040450390/
For thousands of years, Buddhists have seen the self as an illusion, if not exactly for the reasons listed above. And they see the self not only as an illusion, but as the primary attachment that is the cause of most of our suffering. In their experience, intense mindfulness or meditation will lead to the extinguishing of that false sense of a distinct self and of all of the suffering to which it is subject.This idea is akin to mine, but as I see it, when one understands this part of himself which could be called "self" / "pure" sensation of "I am" and is able to distinguish it, one obtains the ability to ignore suffering and fear (to some extent, depending on individual programming of the brain). This is because you're on a free ride here that is life, and you cannot escape it even if you would want to .. the next one will be waiting at the door.

The alternative to all this is, I'm about to go insane and I'm merely giving reasons for myself to be extremely lazy. :D

[joyrex]

Every one of us has the sense of self. Yet, we cannot share it among others[, at least directly, as it is experienced].

The individual POV cannot go away, as long as we humans exist.

[TillEulenspiegel]

One of the best depictations of the Budda is Him sitting under a tree with one hand extended opening outwards embracing the universe and the other with one finger in the ground symbolizing even tho he was enlightened he still had a connection to the baser physical life.

So The take I got from it was that as there is oneness there is separation. If you look at the Hawiian islands they are all separate from the top view, goto the sea floor and you will see they are all connected.

[joyrex]

Originally posted by Tricky
I still can't get a handle on what you mean by this. Sometimes it seems you are just saying "life goes on", other times you seem to be proposing an actual "survival of self-awareness".To me they are the same thing. The self arises again. (While sentient life goes on.)

Beforehand I have read about self-realization but it made no sense to me, until I personally understood that the contemplation process must begin from birth, death and afterlife. At least it works for me.

I also must confess that this realization process in is no way rational, though neither is it irrational. (Since I don't see how it would conflict with any rational knowledge.) I suppose postrational would be more fitting. While I cannot adequately prove the true nature for any of premises in the process, the process itself is very real and it changes the individual. In the end it's a worldview rather than a theory that would need to be proven.

[Dancing David]

I wpuld like to respectfully sugest that the self is not continous, all the elements that we call self change from moment to moment. There is the individual aggregate of things we call the self. But the continuity of the self is illusion.

If I feel that I am not the same me that i was five years ago, then how can i believe that someone else who shares an experience with me (in the dustant future) is the same self?

[joyrex]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I wpuld like to respectfully sugest that the self is not continous, all the elements that we call self change from moment to moment. There is the individual aggregate of things we call the self. But the continuity of the self is illusion.

If I feel that I am not the same me that i was five years ago, then how can i believe that someone else who shares an experience with me (in the dustant future) is the same self? I still would say that all this is irrelevant. It's about the points in time while which one can say "I am" - and right now you probaby have many memories that originate from a time period that was more than five years ago. I find these memories, for example, as evidence that the self remains (the self / ego that remembers), despite consisting of a totally different set of particles. It is not about the quality of the feeling nor any other attributes.

But I suppose this boils down to mere opinion and way of seeing things, so further discussion would be rather pointless.

[joyrex]

Your self has witnessed all those events in your life that you remember [and more].

Doesn't this make sense?

[Dancing David]

I am presenting a rather radical POV for most westerners, just trying to spead the news!

[Atlas]

Originally posted by joyrex
... But I suppose this boils down to mere opinion and way of seeing things...
Joyrex,
It boils not to anything that is mere. How we see Self has everything to do with who we are. Sure it's our personal Subjective Reality. But we discover much in the articulation of it.

This reminds me in a small way of a spoof I wrote in Socratic dialogue style in which I postulated a substance called Lifebuds. It isn't the story that is so much important - it's that in the exploration I discovered alot of crackpot notions of the Self and just as many beautiful notions. None of which are provable.

But in spoof and real life - if it's good - you wanna see the ending. Only then can you make a fair assessment.

So hold a positive hypothesis dear. We both feel that there is no need to experience objective reality as anything bleak. It is rich, wonderful, and for now, unknowable in the essence of the 'I' in it. Surely the ever changing 'I am' of consciousness continues it's unfoldment.

Continue too, in your rich Transformation as you will and as the king of your own joy.

[joyrex]

Yes. It is unprovable as much as it is inevitable.

Primary purpose of life - to be.

Just a few thoughts that sprang out of somewhere. ;)

[elliotfc]

What's the deal with fear? Why does it hang so heavy here in this forum? Why does everybody else see fear when I don't?

Fear has nothing to do with objective reality. If someone has a take on objective reality that is different from yours why do you have to label it as derived from fear?

Is it like the preacher who is always preaching about the sin of lustfulness while staring at the breasts of the chick in the front row? You have to wonder about anyone when they're always seeing things in other people.

Maybe all people our afraid of death. Maybe only some people are afraid of death. What does that have to do with what a person believes? Some Christians don't fear death, some Christians do fear death. Some atheists don't fear death, some atheists do fear death. Who cares? Obviously a lot of people here. So my question is what is the big deal?

-Elliot

[Atlas]

Originally posted by elliotfc
What's the deal with fear?... If someone has a take on objective reality that is different from yours why do you have to label it as derived from fear?...

Elliot,
To me the answer is not so much death as Hell. Hell is a tangible reality to the Christian. Jesus spent 3 days there after he died. Dante has made this place, well... hellish. It becomes synonymous with the apocalyptic Lake of Fire which is the second death, and everlasting torment.

Every child is made to conjure an image of this horrific place as their own penalty for being bad. Later in life, Christians assign others to that hellhole just for not believing the same ugly fantasy they have... as told here in a recent thread.

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred in The most hideous thing about religion
...The owner rang up my bill, I handed him a ten, he gave me one dollar too much as change.
I pointed this out to him and gave him back the dollar. He asked me was I a Christian, I said no.
He observed that it was a pity that so decent a man was going to Hell...

As a matter of fact most proselytizers don't get very far into their message of the 'Good News' of Jesus without explaining the bad news for those who reject their truth. They are purveyors of fear. They possess an infected mind and they spread the disease under the guise of medicine.

It is true that once a Christian accepts Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior that he can undergo a change. The fear of damnation that brought him to the Lord is pushed low and raised up is Hope and the Love of Jesus, the claim on an everlasting reward.

But Hell lurks in the subconscious when bad things happen or doubt creeps in. The Prince of Darkness is called on as an explanation. Sin is raised up as the strings in you that the Devil plucks and his grasping clutches are pulling you deeper into his abyss. This is very real to you and the road to perdition is wide.

The only escape is to hold yourself in thrall to your preacher's ideal. If you follow your own heart you might just as well kill yourself now because Hell has your room readied. Jesus, Yes Jesus. But the right Jesus; Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, they have all condemned each other to the pit at times in history even to this very day.

Likewise Islam... not that far from Christianity in it's hold on it's followers, so controls the subjective reality of the believers that it will employ terrorism to win recruits. Some of the biggest days around the world for conversion to Islam were the days following the fall of the twin towers. The Taliban ruled with an overt fear based system but Christianity has its own covert oppression.

It preaches sweetness and light but the threat of eternal damnation is one sexual thought or one missed church service away. Don't think for a moment that it is not a part of your reality. Just try rejecting Jesus for a week and see if you are not haunted by the laughing demons of hell.

It permeates all of your thought. Fear... the loss of your eternal soul... eternal damnation... eternity in the fires of hell.

I wish I was a better writer so I could show you what you will not see.

Fear is a central aspect of the faith. Excommunication has been a threat wielded by some churches. Shunning by others. Because the authorities know you fear being cast out and what it means for your eternal soul.

Again, the systems are fear based. Luckily, they offer the only medicine that works against that sick fear. Their idea of Salvation.



Except for all that... What's the deal with fear?...Not a whole lot really. But to some people it's a big deal. And Elliot, this wasn't directed at you personally. It is about the large body of Christians who believe that by threatening Hell on others they are doing the Lord's work and in so doing are assuaging their own fear.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Atlas


Elliot,
To me the answer is not so much death as Hell. Hell is a tangible reality to the Christian. Jesus spent 3 days there after he died. Dante has made this place, well... hellish. It becomes synonymous with the apocalyptic Lake of Fire which is the second death, and everlasting torment.

Every child is made to conjure an image of this horrific place as their own penalty for being bad. Later in life, Christians assign others to that hellhole just for not believing the same ugly fantasy they have... as told here in a recent thread.

Yes, it is only right that hell (the absence of God) be made, by analogy, to be a horrible place.

For example, drunk driving showcases cars, videos, et al. Is that to instill fear? Or is that just showing information?

I'm not saying that the mature person should focus on Hell. But we educate by telling people how bad things are.

-Elliot

[Atlas]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Yes, it is only right that hell (the absence of God) be made, by analogy, to be a horrible place.

I'm not saying that the mature person should focus on Hell. But we educate by telling people how bad things are.

-Elliot
A nice Christian would say that I'm getting a reward in heaven but you will stay where you are planted in the ground. Why even have hell? Revelation talks like people rise up from their graves on the last day, are judged, and follow Satan into the Lake of fire. The fire may be eternal but scripture doesn't say that the soul burns eternally, does it? It's Dante's world. I don't think Jesus ever said a word about his 3 days in Hell. Why not? The Gospels don't put Him there either, do they? It's been a long time since I read them. Isn't it just a phrase from the Creed?

I've always imagined they sent Jesus to Hell for 3 days because they couldn't imagine a divine being just plain dead for any length of time. And they know from his own words that he hadn't yet ascended. (Even though he told the good thief he was going to Paradise. Was he just jerking the guy's chain?) Nobody dwelt on how and why Jesus went to Hell in my church. Did they in yours?

What's your take on that? Educate me by telling me how bad things are?