Life after Death

Op is asking questions from humans point of view.

I think jordan maxwell said it best, that god is just. That may not mean what you want it to mean, but there is a right way and a wrong way in things.

You believe what you want, but i would say do not let anyone tell you what you think god is, or what ever is out there. Humans have no understanding beyond there limited perceptions.

Look how many times science gets it wrong, also its the reason why humans believe in teh super natural, it just means we as humans only have a limited range of perception, and beyond that science cannot understand.

So do not go claiming you know what god wants or what there vews on our world is, as you have no idea.
 
Coltephilos said:
Considering we have a pretty firm understanding as to the biological processes after death, I would have to say that there is no afterlife. Some will argue that the mind is a separate entity from the body, to which I will retort "Have you ever had a fever? If so, did you not hallucinate?".
Click to expand...

You could bring into question the concept of the Transhumanistic "Singularity", whereby the likelihood is you are either symbiotically part of an artificial intelligence conscious loop that on death you become fully self aware or completely simulated in a simulated universe. Death just becomes some obsolete function that existed to deal with overpopulation when the knowledge of such things had yet to bloom.
 
Coltephilos said:
Considering we have a pretty firm understanding as to the biological processes after death, I would have to say that there is no afterlife. Some will argue that the mind is a separate entity from the body, to which I will retort

"Have you ever had a fever? If so, did you not hallucinate?".
Click to expand...

I have had fevers, and I didn't always hallucinate. One can learn to detach one's thinking from the body a bit, and do so at will. This is actually a very basic skill that most people already have in some measure, the question is only in how far one is willing to cultivate it.
 
lightgigantic said:
On the contrary, there are quite a few recorded incidents of individuals providing information that their current culture, education, language and/or age would prohibit them from having access to.
Click to expand...

That's a weak argument in favor of believing there is an "afterlife."

Moral-philosophical arguments are much stronger.
 
I have yet to see anyone explain how to create consciousness. I have yet to see science demonstrate that it can create consciousness. Or life. Or laws of physics for that matter. In the shadow of scientific failure and hubris, there is the light, the light of God, the light of good.
 
Coltephilos said:
Considering we have a pretty firm understanding as to the biological processes after death, I would have to say that there is no afterlife. Some will argue that the mind is a separate entity from the body, to which I will retort "Have you ever had a fever? If so, did you not hallucinate?".
Click to expand...


Any time certain topics come up, such as the phenomenon of out-of-body experiences (not to be confused with "near death" experiences), I see an almost palpable hostility toward it from skeptics. The worst of it is saved for those experts who've become "believers" after such an experience (you're supposed to be one of us, traitor!), or experiences in which two or more people have participated.

Take, for example, Dr. Eben Alexander: he is a neurosurgeon and, until he had an OBE, was an atheist convinced that such accounts were nothing but hallucinations. But once he wrote his book and came out with a different view on the subject, entire websites were created to attack him on every front of his professional and private life. Even the doctor who treated came out with attacks, sometimes going as far as to offer contradictory accounts of his condition when he was brought in.
 
( ͡° ͜ʖ͡°) said:
Any time certain topics come up, such as the phenomenon of out-of-body experiences (not to be confused with "near death" experiences), I see an almost palpable hostility toward it from skeptics. The worst of it is saved for those experts who've become "believers" after such an experience (you're supposed to be one of us, traitor!), or experiences in which two or more people have participated.

Take, for example, Dr. Eben Alexander: he is a neurosurgeon and, until he had an OBE, was an atheist convinced that such accounts were nothing but hallucinations. But once he wrote his book and came out with a different view on the subject, entire websites were created to attack him on every front of his professional and private life. Even the doctor who treated came out with attacks, sometimes going as far as to offer contradictory accounts of his condition when he was brought in.
Click to expand...

There is no conflict between physics and the existence of a soul. The problem is that neurologists mistake chemical information flow with consciousness. But then fail to be able to reproduce consciousness in the lab.
 
Mazulu said:
There is no conflict between physics and the existence of a soul. The problem is that neurologists mistake chemical information flow with consciousness. But then fail to be able to reproduce consciousness in the lab.
Click to expand...

The conflict is that a soul is unnecessary to explain anything. Many complex things can't be reproduced in a lab, but that doesn't give your hypothesis any more credence, as you have yet to show what a soul is.
 
spidergoat said:
The conflict is that a soul is unnecessary to explain anything. Many complex things can't be reproduced in a lab, but that doesn't give your hypothesis any more credence, as you have yet to show what a soul is.
Click to expand...
A soul is a unique, existentially singular embodiment of consciousness. In other words, every soul is unique. A soul, like a space-time continuum, is one object that cannot be destroyed by entropy. A soul is consciousness. Souls (re)incarnate into the physical world, and operate the neural-chemical machinery of the brain that they are attached to. Neurochemical mechanisms modulate consciousness, they can block consciousness (dreamless sleep/unconsciousness). When the neuro-chemical environment of the soul is destroyed, the soul escapes and is no longer modulated by the physical universe.
 
Mazulu said:
A soul is a unique, existentially singular embodiment of consciousness. In other words, every soul is unique. A soul, like a space-time continuum, is one object that cannot be destroyed by entropy. A soul is consciousness. Souls (re)incarnate into the physical world, and operate the neural-chemical machinery of the brain that they are attached to. Neurochemical mechanisms modulate consciousness, they can block consciousness (dreamless sleep/unconsciousness). When the neuro-chemical environment of the soul is destroyed, the soul escapes and is no longer modulated by the physical universe.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but souls have never been shown to exist, so obviously, you are lying.
 
Stryder said:
The answer there is "No" for a few reasons, first of the materials that a person is comprised of is going to have an entirely different history (unless you are of course using the same building bricks), there is then the spacial difference since both parties would have been occupying different spaces at different times, there is also the fact that the world they assimilate with will be different (Their friends and family would be different from one another).

The only thing's they'd have in common is perhaps how they look and the limitations of their immune systems sharing similar results when confronted with something they are weak to, the only potential change their is through a surrogate birthing parent which might introduce different immunities.
Click to expand...
Admittedly I feel you are sound in your contra.
However after discussions with a few "past lifers" I get the distinct impression that the re-emergence of a DNA combination [DNA Recombinant - my label] is a distinct possibility. Also from what I have come to understand humanities understanding of the genome and how it impacts on, for example, "self-identity" etc. is far from adequate to place limitations on it's nature.
Chimera Genetics provides a fascinating insight into some of the potentials regarding the eternal nature of a given DNA combination. By logical extension one could draw a relationship to the greatest drivers behind human fertility, [to ensure not only the diversification of the genome but also it's survivor-ship.]
Often science will only look at the diversity as generation after generation produces unique coding. However the possibility [probabilistic ] occurrence of a generational clone [or close to] is actually quite likely, even though rarely considered [ not thought of ] IMO.
The "past lifer " may very well be only 75% clone but sufficient to provoke the insight of past lives into their thought/dream stream due to genetic influences.
Possibly we will find at some time in the future that this "possibility" of being "naturally" cloned, even in part [say >75%], in the future generations is one of our primary genetic motivations, thus leading to ideas about after life and eternal continuation and the passion for the survival of our human race as collective and individually.

I also tend to feel that to differentiate "self-identity" from your DNA is absurd. Every individual skin cell for example could contain your entire DNA and if cloned a replication of your self including self identity would be feasible.

Just thoughts... [physical life after "death"]

Edit:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/01/britain-tutankhamun-dna-idAFL3E7J135P20110801
dated: 01/08/2011
Aug 1 (Reuters Life!) - Up to 70 percent of British men and half of all Western European men are related to the Egyptian Pharaoh Tutankhamun, geneticists in Switzerland said.

Scientists at Zurich-based DNA genealogy centre, iGENEA, reconstructed the DNA profile of the boy Pharaoh, who ascended the throne at the age of nine, his father Akhenaten and grandfather Amenhotep III, based on a film that was made for the Discovery Channel.

The results showed that King Tut belonged to a genetic profile group, known as haplogroup R1b1a2, to which more than 50 percent of all men in Western Europe belong, indicating that they share a common ancestor.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
(Q) said:
Sorry, but souls have never been shown to exist, so obviously, you are lying.
Click to expand...
Q: Just curious...[sincerely]
Why did you use the words "obviously you are lying" instead of obviously you are deluded or mistaken or...
...a "Freudian slip" perhaps?
 
Last edited:
( ͡° ͜ʖ͡°) said:
Any time certain topics come up, such as the phenomenon of out-of-body experiences (not to be confused with "near death" experiences), I see an almost palpable hostility toward it from skeptics. The worst of it is saved for those experts who've become "believers" after such an experience (you're supposed to be one of us, traitor!), or experiences in which two or more people have participated.

Take, for example, Dr. Eben Alexander: he is a neurosurgeon and, until he had an OBE, was an atheist convinced that such accounts were nothing but hallucinations. But once he wrote his book and came out with a different view on the subject, entire websites were created to attack him on every front of his professional and private life. Even the doctor who treated came out with attacks, sometimes going as far as to offer contradictory accounts of his condition when he was brought in.
Click to expand...
I believe what you talk of is a typical paranoid reaction when ever "sacred and secret truths" are on the verge of being revealed [as truths and not mere beliefs]. To "discredit the messenger" to the point of institutionalization, is a common tactic as seen in the legal profession where by the witnesses to a crime are attacked for their credibility and seen by society generally when persons attempt to discuss their intimate paranormal experiences.

Interestingly enough one of the most glaring examples of this can be seen in the story of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, beaten half to death, betrayed of justice, advocacy, friendship, and then strung up on a cross to die slowly. Why? If one assumes the story to be half true, the truth that Jesus demonstrated just sent his Jewish society [esp. the power brokers he threatened to dis-empower] crazy with paranoia and their reaction was to do as they did.

btw
Religious disclaimer:
for the record, I am not a follower of Christianity as I trend more towards Pantheism instead.
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
Q: Just curious...[seriously] Why did you use the words "obviously you are lying" instead of obviously you are deluded or mistaken or...
...a "Freudian slip" perhaps?
Click to expand...
Now I'm starting to really wonder: there can't just be one universe. Where are all the other universes and why can't we detect them? I'm also wondering why the laws of physics for other universe have to be precise? Why can't they be more "fuzzy"?
 
Quantum Quack said:
Q: Just curious...[sincerely]
Why did you use the words "obviously you are lying" instead of obviously you are deluded or mistaken or...
...a "Freudian slip" perhaps?
Click to expand...

Because, they are indeed willfully lying. They may have already been told they are deluded or mistaken, which is usually followed up with facts and evidence, which they then reject or deny in favor of their lies.
 
(Q) said:
Because, they are indeed willfully lying. They may have already been told they are deluded or mistaken, which is usually followed up with facts and evidence, which they then reject or deny in favor of their lies.
Click to expand...
Is he lying about what he believes or is he telling the truth about what he believes?
Why use the word "they" when referring to one poster?
It's just that the accusation of lying is considerably different in it's meaning and intent, to an opinion of delusion or mistake etc...
I am just trying to understand why the accusation of lying is so common here on sciforums.
 
Quantum Quack said:
Is he lying about what he believes or is he telling the truth about what he believes?
Why use the word "they" when referring to one poster?
It's just that the accusation of lying is considerably different in it's meaning and intent, to an opinion of delusion or mistake etc...
I am just trying to understand why the accusation of lying is so common here on sciforums.
Click to expand...
Hi Quantum quack,
I have yet to see "Q" express anything articulate, thoughtful or even pleasant. That's why he's on my ignore list. In contrast, I have locked horns with Baleron, Write4u, Fraggle Rocker and others who have a mighty intelligence and are far too interesting not to read their posts. Let me know if Q has an epiphany or says something interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top