afterlife thoughts

Tell me examples of what you think science can't measure.

I certainly didn't say science was infallible. There's no doubting there's not perfection in it. If the strict adherence to science is to be looked at as a type of dogma, it's a safer dogma given its proven track record.But there are objective truths - things we can know without a sliver of a doubt, absolutes that exist irrespective of subjective interpretation: there's no denying this either. Surely you acknowledge that there are things that simply ARE. That there's knowable realities. Science ( assuming our definitions are the same) in its current incarnation has enough compelling evidence to emphatically deny the spiritual ideas put forth. All of science is not simply a consensus reality though. There is a body of knowledge that exists of its own accord, but man-made all the same; but it contains immutable truths despite being subjectively asserted. My definition of the concept holds that it does not exclusively contain just utmost certainty. And in regards to far-fetched concepts like spirituality, simply because you have a conception of it does not automatically make it a possibility.

There are things science hasn't proven definitively. But these pieces together do not automatically add up to "there is still possibility for the ethereal, spiritual, and so forth." There is no "Aha! You see? Science isn't perfect after all." gotcha! moment. OF COURSE it errs, in the same way that wielders of facts can muck them up easily. Science as a collective of information is reliable if not diluted by human error.

Oblivion, I don't feel the need to argue. Best wishes.

Oblivion, these claims/assertions aren't accurate, and they certainly don't rise to the level of being 'facts'...

If you could prove that the physical body creates consciousness, and prove HOW the physical body creates consciousness, you would win a nobel prize for your work! No one has been able to accomplish this.... I wonder why not?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The gap between matter and consciousness is so radical and profound that it is hard to imagine that consciousness could simply emerge as an epiphenomenon out of the complexity of material processes in the central nervous system. We have ample clinical and experimental evidence showing deep correlations between the anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry of the brain, on the one hand, and conscious processes, on the other. However, none of these findings proves unequivocally that consciousness is actually generated by the brain. The origin of consciousness from matter is simply assumed as an obvious and self-evident fact based on the belief in the primacy of matter in the universe. In the entire history of science, nobody has ever offered a plausible explanation how consciousness could be generated by material processes, or even suggested a viable approach to the problem.

While these experiments clearly show that consciousness is closely connected with the neurophysiological and biochemical processes in the brain, they have very little bearing on the nature and origin of consciousness. There actually exists ample evidence suggesting exactly the opposite, namely that consciousness can under certain circumstances operate independently of its material substrate and can perform functions that reach far beyond the capacities of the brain. This is most clearly illustrated by the existence of out-of-body experiences (OOBEs). These can occur spontaneously, or in a variety of facilitating situations that include shamanic trance, psychedelic sessions, hypnosis, experiential psychotherapy, and particularly near-death situations.

In all these situations consciousness can separate from the body and maintain its sensory capacity, while moving freely to various close and remote locations. Of particular interest are “veridical OOBEs,” where independent verification proves the accuracy of perception of the environment under these circumstances. There are many other types of transpersonal phenomena that can mediate accurate information about various aspects of the universe that had not been previously received and recorded in the brain.

Western materialistic science has thus not been able to produce any convincing evidence that consciousness is a product of the neurophysiological processes in the brain. It has been able to maintain its present position only by resisting, censoring, and even ridiculing a vast body of observations indicating that consciousness can exist and function independently of the body and of the physical senses. This evidence comes from parapsychology, anthropology, LSD research, experiential psychotherapy, thanatology, and the study of spontaneously occurring nonordinary states of consciousness. All these disciplines have amassed impressive data demonstrating clearly that human consciousness is capable of doing many things that the brain (as understood by mainstream science) could not possibly do." ~ The Cosmic Game (Stanislav Grof M.D.)

-------------------------------------------------------

"Many serious and trustworthy people have reported that, to their great surprise, they were able to experience an enhanced consciousness, independently of their body. On the basis of a few scientifically sound studies of NDE among cardiac arrest survivors, researchers have come to the conclusion that current scientific knowledge cannot offer an adequate explanation for the cause and content of a near-death experience. Some prospective, empirical studies provide conclusive evidence that it is possible to experience an enhanced and lucid consciousness during a cardiac arrest. We appear to have scientific proof that the cerebral cortex and brain stem are devoid of measurable activity during a cardiac arrest and that the clinical picture also reflects a loss of all brain function. Brain studies have shown that under normal circumstances a functioning, collaborative network of brain centers is a prerequisite for the experience of waking consciousness. This is absent during a cardiac arrest. Oxygen deficiency in itself provides no explanation because NDEs can be reported under circumstances that are not life-threatening, such as mortal fear or a serious depression. Our mind is capable of altering the anatomy and function of the brain (neuroplasticity). In many respects, both consciousness and brain function remain a huge mystery.

The brain and the body merely function as a relay station receiving part of the overall consciousness and part of our memories in our waking consciousness in the form of measurable and constantly changing electromagnetic fields. In this view, these electromagnetic fields of the brain are not the cause but rather the effect or consequence of endless consciousness. According to this concept, our brain can be compared to a television set that receives information from electromagnetic fields and decodes it into sound and vision. Our brain can also be compared to a television camera, which converts sound and vision into electromagnetic waves, or encodes it. These electromagnetic waves contain the essence of all information for a TV program but are available to our senses only through a television camera and set. In this view, brain function can be seen as a transceiver; the brain does not produce but rather facilitates consciousness. And DMT or dimethyltryptamine, which is produced in the pineal gland, could play an important role in disturbing this process, as we saw earlier. Consciousness contains the seeds of all the information that is stored as wave functions in nonlocal space. It transmits information to the brain and via the brain receives information from the body and the senses. That consciousness affects both form and function of the brain and the body has been described in the discussion of neuroplasticity (“The mind can change the brain”).

Consciousness is not confined to the brain because consciousness is nonlocal, and our brain facilitates rather than produces our experience of consciousness. Whereas our waking consciousness has a biological basis, because our body functions as an interface, there is no biological basis for our endless and nonlocal consciousness, which has its roots in nonlocal space. Waking consciousness is experienced via the body, but endless consciousness does not reside in our brain.

It often takes an NDE to get people to think about the possibility of experiencing consciousness independently of the body and to realize that consciousness has probably always been and always will be, that everything and everybody are connected, that all of our thoughts will exist forever and have an impact on both ourselves and our surroundings, and that death as such does not exist. An NDE provides an opportunity to reconsider our relationship with ourselves, others, and nature, but only if we continue to ask open questions and abandon preconceptions." ~ Consciousness Beyond Life (Pim van Lommel M.D.)

First off, starrysky, I didn't consider this 'arguing' so much as just casual debate. That's fine.

wolfgaze, thanks for that. Certainly never claimed to be a scholar. Far, far from it. Even though I assert, I have no doubt I'll encounter wrongness (possibly much); I'm not too humbled these days, but I expect it and appreciate it. I wouldn't say I'm indoctrinated into scientific materialism, so I'm willing to listen. I always enjoy expanding my definition of concepts, and that's interesting what you present to me. Some of the sources seem questionable. I'll have to check them out. I certainly disagree with: that everything and everybody are connected, that all of our thoughts will exist forever and have an impact on both ourselves and our surroundings, and that death as such does not exist.

I'd always considered consciousness - the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world. I was definitely speaking in reductionist terms to save time, and I shouldn't have said consciousness is only localized to the brain. To the mind and body I should say. Though you'd have to break down, or reduce for me, how consciousness extends beyond mind and body. I know it can influence things outside itself.

But you'd have to further clarify how our mind extends beyond our physical selves. Mind
, I suppose is, pretty open to interpretation. There's an article that suggests 'In other words, our mind is not simply our perception of experiences, but those experiences themselves.' That's certainly an expanded definition that I've not really considered.
And I should also ask, for curiosity's sake, what this evolved idea of consciousness means to you? Does it make you believe in life after death etc.? This still would not change much for me. I still believe your essence is wiped away after death.

"If consciousness is not a product of the brain it would mean that the human physicality is not required for the continuation of consciousness, or consciousness itself." - From an article. Certainly an interesting concept.

I'm certainly skeptical of this notion that "people have the ability to project their consciousness outside of our body and view another remote location." I take fields of study like parapsychology with a grain of salt typically.

Someone would have to really sell me the idea that human perception extends beyond the reach of the senses.

Do you consider consciousness the means by which aspects of our experience are represented, stored, retrieved and shared with other minds via language and other signals?

Well, it's long since been proven we as human beings have a sense beyond the 5 physical ones. The "6th Sense" is real. That is the sense beyond the physical self. That feeling, perhaps, of being watched when your back is turned to said watcher. That feeling mothers get sometimes when their infant is in distress and calling out to them. An intuition that goes beyond sight, sound, taste, smell, and touch. It's real, whether you chose to believe it or not. It's called extrasensory perception and though it's stronger with some people, all have it.

Myself, my mother and my grandmother are all proof of this. Apparently within us is a higher concentration of electrical energies, which gives all of us a very strong aura. This aura effects devices which we wear, given that we wear them long enough. These devices, watches are the most common example, simply stop working after about a year of wearing them, even those with battery life guaranteed to be longer than a year. Apparently our strong auras suck the electrical energy out of the watch battery, siphoning it slowly until the battery no longer holds a charge.

Auras are strongly linked to the 6th sense, in case you're wondering how this all links up. The stronger and more receptive our auras are to the energy around us, the more likely we are able to perceive with it. In fact, some are able to see the auras of other people. I admit, I don't have this gift, per say, but I can sense auras and if I close my eyes, my 6th sense can allow me to feel the aura and in my mind chakra or the third eye, I can see it and all it's blemishes. If I concentrate my energy and mind hard enough, I can even extract the blemishes from the aura and allow it to flow freely, thus opening up the chakras.

I hope this evidence I put forth helps in someway prove to those nonbelievers out there that there is a world beyond the world we sense in the conventional way.

Have a good day!

I don't need to debate (then), and it's not because I don't share some of your beliefs, Oblivion. I'm agnostic and also spiritual (mainly in that I meditate and read buddhist writings). I'm very open to the idea of spirituality, others perceptions, new information, etc etc etc. I respect it. I also love science. I think the two can go together. We have no idea about a lot of things. I'm not the kind of person who's like "No, there is no god, no supernatural, no anything." I have experienced and witnessed things that say otherwise. I have heard other people's stories, too. For instance, clairvoyance and telepathy, I believe, are actual things. But science rocks. I am not open to anyone who is dogmatic about anything though (not open themselves), even in their scientific beliefs when it comes to spirituality. This is, also, a Spiritual forum. I think it's important to be mindful of that. I'm not saying I know how it all works in spirituality though (I actually have no clue). For instance, there's a discussion on the Law of Attraction here. I think the LOA, in some sense, is crap. But psychology has dome some studies on positive thinking, at the same time. Any who, I believe that science may learn about these things more and be able to explain them: supernatural / spiritual / god / clairvoyance / etc. Perhaps people will not like the answers, perhaps they will. Perhaps it will be a hodge podge of what they already know and believe, and they will be surprised too.

Edit: I think I should also say I was being pretty rhetorical and silly when I said "but how do you really know?" I suppose it was a little sarcastic and snarky too, for which I apologize. I don't think you realized that and just went ahead, assuming I was genuinely curious. Which makes sense. I used no smileys / emojis and you don't know me and didn't know where I was coming from. Apologies if that creates or created any stress for you.

I didn't care if it was or wasn't sarcastic; I was treating it as if it were genuine. Stress? Not at all. Responding on these forums is a way to relax usually. It's cathartic.

I think that ‘it’ is a lot more crazy than true.

I don’t believe in spirits and I don’t believe in an afterlife. We come from nothingness and return to nothingness. We contribute, in a very small way, to the evolution of our species. In the blink of a Universal eye we will adapt, we’ll be replaced by our future species and ice ages will return so we’ll bundle up, eat blubber and take up crochet.

Interesting question. Mainline Christianity is largely silent about what goes on in ‘heaven’ (afterlife), right? Islam gives a few hints but I don’t think that most Jewish folks believe in an afterlife, either. No heaven, ya know?

i remember now why agnostics are so universally reviled; it is not because they do NOT BELIEVE, it is because so many of them like to rebuff Believers. i have observed thru this thread that those who DO believe, seem to be more careful in what they say, how they phrase their opinions, than are those who are certain of their non-belief.

as with all things in life, little is CERTAIN, and certainly not a belief. claiming to have scientific evidence for things that cannot even be measured scientifically is not proof~! there is an old saying: those who are certain, are certainly foolish. let us keep an open mind, be careful how we postulate our opinions, and allow for the possibility that even tho we don't KNOW all that much about other dimensions, the rumors are very old and wide-spread.

Are you certain of this?

The contemporary concept of after life is a carrot on a stick used to lure and control.

I believe in an afterlife. Many a time I've felt the presence of the pets I've cared about/for and my Mum's even better than me at sensing spirits.

Me and Mum were talking about this and mum said that she knows that we all go to those we love.

The alternative is just too heartbreaking for me to even consider, as in "we die and never see those our hearts cry for ever again, the end"

I am very doubtful of an afterlife. I dont have 100% faith in God like I used to but I think he is pretty likey. The afterlife just seems to good to be true. I think you just ease to exist which terrifies me. Or you become a ghost which is also scary.

I worked in Grief Counseling and Crisis Intervention, have been with a number of people when they died. Before death there was a measurable, visual energy in the person, even if comatose or on life support, that disappeared with death. So if energy is neither created nor destroyed, simply changed in form, then what happened to the life energy? There is definitely an afterlife in my experience.

I've come across the book 'Final Gifts', which was written by two hospice nurses about their intriguing experiences working with those who were (physically) dying? If not, it may interest you...

I consider myself an agnostic atheist, and I don't have any belief in an afterlife. I don't necessarily deny the existence of one; it would certainly be nice for something to be after this. But I don't hinge my life on one existing either. I prefer to live as if an afterlife doesn't exist, which gives this life infinitely more meaning (not out of a bias against religion, but simply by virtue of this life being finite). If there's an afterlife, it comes as a welcome bonus.

I believe after death we either go to Valhalla or Hel (neither of which are bad places to be).

First of all I think there is no such thing as “immutable truth.” That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.

I’ve had a near death experience that lasted 45 minutes on a clock. (Car crash) To me it just seemed like a few minutes. I just remember feeling calm and peaceful. From this experience I believe that conciousness can exist outside the body. Whether my spirit would have moved on somewhere else I don’t know. I didn’t see any tunnel of light or hear ancestors calling or see the flames of hell. I was just watching the medical staff wondering what they what they were were going to do with my body because they decided I was dead. I certainly looked dead. My skin was completely white, my lips were blue, and I was covered in blood. Not a good look for me.

They all left the room and I thought well hmmm, maybe I am dead? What am I supposed to do now? After a while a nurse came in the room and began to wipe the blood off my face. As soon as she touched me I slammed back into my body and started screaming because I was in pain. It scared the living crap out of the poor nurse.

I think that we atheists are more reviled than the poor agnostics! And it’s true that we don’t believe in garden fairies or spirit worlds and there are those — Richard Dawkins comes to mind — who not only rebuff ‘believers’ but engage in debate with spiritualists in an attempt to elucidate our views: And there’s nothing bad or wicked in that.

I’m not certain why you’ve concluded that spiritualists are any more careful or eloquent in what and how they write than atheists? Spiritualism can certainly lend itself to much more flowery prose because there are no restraints upon the imaginations of spiritualists. If you allow yourself to believe that spirits exist you have to allow that others could be right about the existence of those pesky garden fairies and spirit dimensions, alternate planes of spiritual existence, misogynist afterlife’s where men are administered to by a dozen virgins, etc. Every notion and fancy becomes ‘possible’ because nothing can be proven or disproven—feelings (vague, strong, esoteric) have to be accepted as facts because there’s absolutely no way to prove the existence of spirits.

I think that I can say with a high degree of certainty, and without resorting to the use of folksy aphorisms, that spirits and afterlives and extra spirit-filled dimensions, etc., do not exist. I’ve no need to ‘keep an open mind’ about spirit-dimensions because I don’t believe in spirits and the only extra theoretical dimensions I know of are found in higher mathematics (9, 10, 11 dimensions? I gotta say, I don’t know!).

Neuroscience is poised to explode in the next 100 years, I believe, but it’s adequate now in offering proofs — factual data — about the functions of the brain. You’re right about science some respects, we can’t with any finality disprove invisible spirits, but we know so much more today about brain functioning that all of the current data means that ‘brain death’ is the death of consciousness — even though our dinosaur-brain-bits might, at some level, continue to function.

Finally, I think that debate over spiritualism can be healthy only if it remains civil and that both sides bring their “I cannot prove” cups. I can’t disprove the non-existence of the invisible any more that you can prove existence. I think that there are more important matters to discuss, really.

P.S. I interact with dead people frequently. Sometimes I know that I’m delusional, sometimes not. The dimensional plane of these interactions are in my brain. If they began to leave cookies for me I could say that they’re real. No cookies yet.

I think that we atheists are more reviled than the poor agnostics! And it’s true that we don’t believe in spirit worlds and there are those — Richard Dawkins comes to mind — who not only rebuff ‘believers’ but engage in debate with spiritualists in an attempt to elucidate our views: And there’s nothing bad or wicked in that.

I’m not certain why you’ve concluded that spiritualists are any more careful or eloquent in what and how they write than atheists? Spiritualism can certainly lend itself to much more flowery prose because there are no restraints upon the imaginations of spiritualists. If you allow yourself to believe that spirits exist you have to allow that others could be right about the existence of those pesky garden fairies and spirit dimensions, alternate planes of spiritual existence, afterlife’s where men are administered to by angels or virgins, etc. Every notion and fancy becomes ‘possible’ because nothing can be proven or disproven—feelings (vague, strong, esoteric) have to be accepted as facts because there’s absolutely no way to prove the existence of spirits.

You’re absolutely right: belief is not a certainty. I think that I can say with a high degree of certainty that spirits and afterlives and extra spirit-filled dimensions, etc., do not exist. I’ve no need to keep an open mind about spirit-dimensions because I don’t believe in spirits, and the only extra theoretical dimensions I know of are found in higher mathematics (9, 10, 11 dimensions? I gotta say, I don’t know!).

Neuroscience is poised to explode in the next 100 years, I believe, but it’s adequate now in offering proofs — factual data — about the functions of the brain. You’re right about science some respects, we can’t with any finality disprove invisible spirits, but we know so much more today about brain functioning that current data means that ‘brain death’ is the death of consciousness — even though our dinosaur-brain-bits might, at some level, continue to function, the ego/us/essence is dead. Brain functioning — or lack of it — can be measured with a simple EEG test or even more complex brain imaging devices.

Finally, I think that debate over spiritualism can be healthy only if it remains civil and that both sides bring their “I cannot prove” cups. I can’t disprove the non-existence of the invisible any more that you can prove existence. I think that there are more important matters to discuss, really.

P.S. I interact with dead people frequently. Sometimes I know that I’m delusional, sometimes not. The dimensional plane of these interactions are in my brain. If they began to leave cookies for me I could say that they’re real. No cookies yet.

I dont really think there is and that scares me to death on so many levels. 1) its like sleep but no dreams and you will be that way forever. 2) your body will be poked and prodded after death (embalming) or burned 3) in 100 years no one will even know you existed unless youre famous4) after time even your family members dont miss you much 5) you never get to see anyone you loved again. The list could go on and on.

Then to me the secret is to be happy in your life and grab all the fun and enjoyment you can. I can honestly say I don't know. I have had some really strange experiences...but then the scientific side of me says something different. So I am just going to "go with it" as it were.

The very fact that we simply can't know...makes 'living' our life so very important.

I won't say I know or I don't know. I will, however, say I believe.

It sounds as if you’re more scared of death than to death.

Death isn’t like sleep and, yes, you will cease to exist forever. No point in worrying about your decomposing corpse or the two or three generations of family members who may recall you — you’ll no longer exist.

You needn’t add to your list; best that you accept the reality of life and work on that rather than pondering the ‘down sides’ of death!