Explaining away Reincarnation

truth
atheist
Posts: 74
Joined: 2012-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Explaining away Reincarnation

How can we disprove, or explain away reincarnation?

The best "evidence" out there for reincarnation is people remembering their past lives.

Checkout the following links:

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa032502a.htm

http://malaysia.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100319003817AABCenl

http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Remember-My-Past-Lives/1617089

http://reincarnation-stories.com/adult-reincarnation-stories

Alot of people sat they feel a connecton with this place or that they just know a certain person even though they havent met them before. Others say that energy cant be created nor destroyed and so this must prove reincarnation.

There's alot of stories out there of people remembering their "past lives." What are some alternative explanations for this? How can we explain it away. 

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3473
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
the idea of

the idea of reincarnation--in india, anyhow--was formulated not because of a bunch of flakes "remembering" past lives, but as a solution to the problem of theodicy.  i must say, it does an admirable job, except of course for the nagging problem of infinite regression.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Outside

 Outside of actual evidence that could be proven, I am just not convinced. 

If a two year old could recall a specific date, name, or town, that might shed some convincing proof on this. Until I see some documentation of this, I am not convinced that reincarnation is real.  

Take me for instance, I have always had a fascination for the Middle Ages. No real rhyme or reason, but was always drawn to that period of time.  If I concentrated hard enough, (and believed hard enough) would it be too far fetched to say that  my imagination could convince me that I was there ? 

As far as little children go, who knows what they may over hear among adult conversations and retain ?  

So while I can not offer a solid proof that reincarnation does not exist, I personally do not believe that it does. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
I think the best source of

I think the best source of evidence is Dr. Ian Stevenson, who spent researching accounts of reincarnation in many cultures. He studied cultures where reincarnation is not taken for granted and cultures where it is. He studied children and adults. He also studied body marks and links to the alleged way of dying in the past life. For example, getting shot in a chest may produce some kind of skin markings in next life on the same spot. I think he was very thorough in his research and didn't make any obvious mistakes.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm 

My sources suggest that reincarnation is actually a much more complex process than it seems. All the life experience is stored in the soul, which is a super-conscious entity with its own will. The people as we know them are merely temporary autonomous vehicles of the soul. The soul constructs them according to its best abilities and experience, sends them to be born with certain goals and then after death it evaluates the results. It may retract the personality entirely into itself and construct a new better one. It may receive experience from multiple personalities, some of them often living within the same time period or even meeting each other. And some personalities last longer than others, they have distinct timelines of lives, while some seem to be one-shot tries with no past lives at all.

And the absolutely most strange thing is, some sources suggest that the soul has a different perspective on the time dimension. We are locked in time, but the soul isn't. So some incarnations may not be chronologic. I don't know how much it is true, but all sources say that weird things happen with time in the upper dimensions.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

truth wrote:
How can we disprove, or explain away reincarnation?.
 

How do we explain alien abductions, bigfoot sightings, seances, haunted places, vampires ... complete the list yourself.

Google them all and get links to them all. I do not where to start in the explaining until there is more than advocate storytelling as evidence. A person shows up and claims to have been born in a particular house in a last life. A neighbor shows up and says his brother lived there. "Yes, I remember you, uncle."

I am not aware of the Catholic Church keeping records on how many people it rejects for each person it accepts as having talked to a saint or some such. Given the number of public claims to the one or so a century it accepts in some manner I suspect it is a lot. Long before science came along it rejection rate was just as high.

On one hand people lie. On the other people want to believe. On the third hand there is no way to set up a test of the claim prior to someone showing up and making a claim. When it is done for a living it is called a cold reading.

Many years ago I met a guy. We both swore we had met before. We could find no points of congruence where we might have met as in never been in the same cities. We didn't want to believe so we left it as a curiosity. Now if we had believed in past lives we could have invented all kinds of things. I assume if us two had the experience it is not uncommon. I assume reincarnationists look for cases of it. Never in the same city? If not in this life then one of our last lives. We could have started tossing around family names, street names, things relatives did and knew. Once a couple things match up near misses start being good enough for believers.

For the stories themselves there was the Bridey Murphy case in the US. Turns out the real story was nothing like the popular story. Everything that might has questioned the story was left out. Things that were included were embellished to make them more accurate. Extraneous surrounding narrative not separated from supposed evidence but appearing to support it. This as in working two supposed facts into a narrative containing many facts, say sort of remembering fighting in a battle and then telling the complete story of the battle.

Look at the 4th link. Essentially nothing is claimed. Certainly nothing that a dream or movie or TV show could not as easily explain. No matter how many trivial bits of "evidence" exist they do not accumulate to more than a lot of trivial things. The 3rd one takes a couple vague memories and an intrigued mother to supply additional information a chilld would likely not have -- an example of how a controlled test cannot be set up in advance. Link 2 is just talk. Link 1 indicates no attempt to investigate so the few details are meaningless.

Take for example the child claiming to have been a king named Hi(gh)top which is about a child's creative level. Certainly the preschool did not discuss ancient kings nor did any known ones have such a name. But is there the slightest chance the child had ever heard of past lives? That people remembered being kings and queens? Is it possible he did not?

Kids try to do what they think people want them today. I am told joined in the family telling where they were when they heard of Pearl Harbor by telling them where I was even though it was before I was born. In India maybe I was remembering hearing of it in a past life. In India I heard of it on a radio in 1941? It must have been a rich family.

And when it comes to adults making claims, people lie. I assume that was the pre-scientific Catholic method of weeding out the messages from god. The House method. People like attention, particularly women. Men will settle for noteriety of any kind. A casual remark taken up by listeners can get out of hand.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

truth wrote:
Alot of people sat they feel a connecton with this place or that they just know a certain person even though they havent met them before. Others say that energy cant be created nor destroyed and so this must prove reincarnation.


The meaning of energy to which that rule applies has a very specific definition in science. Simply declaring something energy does not make it energy. Declaring a soul is energy as absurd on its face unless one has in fact quantified exactly how much energy, in what form and demonstrated its existence. I have read lots of gibberish about this "energy" but not a single description that was not gibberish.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
I was and still am a bit

I was and still am a bit skeptical about reincarnation for reasons that have to do with the structure of my beliefs. However after reading a bit about the work of Dr. Ian Stevenson got me thinking...

I remember that even Carl Sagan said that more research was needed. He saw something there.

My current stand on reincarnation is the following: I tend to believe that reincarnation does indeed occur, but it's not like eastern religion puts it. I can happen for a number of reasons, more or less known. On of the reasons reincarnation can occur is because of sudden and unexpected death. 

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote: My current

Teralek wrote:
 My current stand on reincarnation is the following: I tend to believe that reincarnation does indeed occur, but it's not like eastern religion puts it. I can happen for a number of reasons, more or less known. On of the reasons reincarnation can occur is because of sudden and unexpected death. 

I'm curious, could you please explain your views more in detail? What are the other reasons for reincarnation? Why would a sudden and unexpected death lead to reincarnation and not otherwise? 

In my opinion, a sudden and unexpected death would leave the discarnate highly unprepared, confused, scared or even completely unaware that he's dead. Such discarnates do not get far from the place of death or they get stuck not very high on the inner planes. (all temporarily, of course) Which only complicates things and hinders reincarnation, instead of making it faster. Other than that, there are more factors that may make the stay in between longer or shorter.

I'd say that a sudden or unexpected death (or highly traumatic one) would leave more physical and mental marks on the next life, making it more obvious that the person had a past life at all. I guess this might be the origin of your opinion. OTOH, I think you're right in the sense that eastern religions claim that people may reincarnate into animals, which is a complete bullshit. It's either a folk superstition or possibly a religious parable equivalent to Christian hell in its logic. Some authors I've read say some early Church fathers like Origen taught reincarnation to trusted disciples, but they publically condemned this folk animal version.

 

Teralek wrote:

I was and still am a bit skeptical about reincarnation for reasons that have to do with the structure of my beliefs. However after reading a bit about the work of Dr. Ian Stevenson got me thinking...

I remember that even Carl Sagan said that more research was needed. He saw something there.

Carl Sagan was a highly advanced person, initiate of 2.4th degree according to my scale of measuring. There are only thousands, maybe a ten thousand people in the world like him. Darwin was 2.0. Einstein 2.2. Benjamin Franklin 2.5. Newton 2.2. Nikola Tesla 2.0.

Where do you think such an advancedness comes from? I don't think they got it all right on one try. 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: I'm curious,

Luminon wrote:

 I'm curious, could you please explain your views more in detail? What are the other reasons for reincarnation? Why would a sudden and unexpected death lead to reincarnation and not otherwise? 

In my opinion, a sudden and unexpected death would leave the discarnate highly unprepared, confused, scared or even completely unaware that he's dead. Such discarnates do not get far from the place of death or they get stuck not very high on the inner planes. (all temporarily, of course) Which only complicates things and hinders reincarnation, instead of making it faster. Other than that, there are more factors that may make the stay in between longer or shorter.

I'd say that a sudden or unexpected death (or highly traumatic one) would leave more physical and mental marks on the next life, making it more obvious that the person had a past life at all. I guess this might be the origin of your opinion. OTOH, I think you're right in the sense that eastern religions claim that people may reincarnate into animals, which is a complete bullshit. It's either a folk superstition or possibly a religious parable equivalent to Christian hell in its logic. Some authors I've read say some early Church fathers like Origen taught reincarnation to trusted disciples, but they publically condemned this folk animal version.

I don't know other reasons for reincarnation for sure, I just don't know. I can speculate. If we take Stevenson research it seems that people who had violent deaths would remember previous lifes. Now we can say that only people who had these deaths reincarnate OR that sudden deaths somehow make it easy to remember. In fact we don't have anything that tells us which one is correct. I believe in the former because of my spiritual beliefs.

Many of these deaths occured suddenly leaving little or no time for what you describe as "highly traumatic one would leave more physical and mental marks". I say a cancer death is much more traumatic. But I agree that a person who dies with cancer is more prepared mentally than one who died suddenly. Still I don't see why or what's the mechanism that would make sudden deaths to remember more clearly past lifes.

If we look at NDE reports like Pam Reynolds, Renee Pasarow, Vicky Noratuk among other "true" cases. One gets the distinct idea that the state of awareness without the brain is much more in tune with reality.

We hear things like: "everything made sense" "trying to explain the afterlife is an impossible task" "It's more real than anything else experienced" "I could find the answers to all the questions about life, about the planets, about God, about everything." They describe this world as a dream of numbeness and the other as the true reality. They want to stay there and never come back as if they finally come home. They often discribe an entire new world to experience.

Furthermore they see deceased family and friends, some have been there for some time. Very rarely I see any direct mention to reincarnation if at all. If it happens all the time there should be little people there.

So reincarnation doesn't make any sense. It's as if you just got to University, to a wonderful place, to your real home and suddenly for some weird reason you have to forget everything and go to kindergarden again.

We evolve... not de-evolve... so to go back, in most cases it would be a set back which is meaningless.

The best metaphor I've heard for the after life is this: The difference between life and the afterlife is the same as life in your mother's womb and life in the real world... that's how "alien" it is. So it would be as if you had to experience living in your mother's womb again! Pointless!

What are other reasons for reincarnation is a good question... I don't know... but I think a premature early death is a strong candidate independently of suddeness or not. A personal extreme bond to the material world could also be a factor.

But I certainly don't belive in the countless reincarnations of eastern religions

 

Luminon wrote:
Carl Sagan was a highly advanced person, initiate of 2.4th degree according to my scale of measuring. There are only thousands, maybe a ten thousand people in the world like him. Darwin was 2.0. Einstein 2.2. Benjamin Franklin 2.5. Newton 2.2. Nikola Tesla 2.0.

Where do you think such an advancedness comes from? I don't think they got it all right on one try. 
 

What are you talking about?!  no one can know how "advanced" one is, not even himself. One can have just an idea. I try really hard to get it right now... and I'm not so sure that I had already "things" with me that allowed me to be a step ahead. I sure NEVER had a experience about past lives

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote:I don't know

Teralek wrote:

I don't know other reasons for reincarnation for sure, I just don't know. I can speculate. If we take Stevenson research it seems that people who had violent deaths would remember previous lifes. Now we can say that only people who had these deaths reincarnate OR that sudden deaths somehow make it easy to remember. In fact we don't have anything that tells us which one is correct. I believe in the former because of my spiritual beliefs.

To me the latter seems much more logical, instead. So I guess your spiritual beliefs are different. Could you please describe them or link me to them?

Teralek wrote:
 Many of these deaths occured suddenly leaving little or no time for what you describe as "highly traumatic one would leave more physical and mental marks". I say a cancer death is much more traumatic. But I agree that a person who dies with cancer is more prepared mentally than one who died suddenly. Still I don't see why or what's the mechanism that would make sudden deaths to remember more clearly past lifes.
My mom was a regression therapy practitioner for years. She routinely took people through their past lives, the past lives which ended so badly that it made a lasting mark on the person. The theory is following: During a narrowed state of consciousness (traumatic circumstances) our thoughts and sensory signals are not "archived" correctly in the subconsciousness. They do not get assigned the time and place tags in which they happened. These tags tell the body when, where and why this and this traumatic experience happened - and that it is not happening right now. Such bad experiences may happen in this life also and regression therapy deals with them, but mostly they could not, because they led to the person's death.

So there is the phenomenon of "restimulation". If a person has an (seemingly innocuous, harmless) experience that corresponds to a traumatic and badly archived subconscious memory, the body goes into the state of shock, of automatic defensive reaction against the old subconscious memory. This may manifest as a phobia, fear of water for example. The therapist's job is to take a person in the state of restimulation and consciously reveal the badly archived experience. They have to go over it several (or many) times, till the body de-sensitizes to it, till it realizes that this is not happening here and now. 

Therefore as for the cancer, you are very correct, it takes time to die of it and people do not get into this state of shock or narrowed consciousness that misplaces the memories. It's all about mental preparation.

For example, years ago we had visitors over here, which is usual. One of them was a man with a metallic thing on his calf, I think it's called a brace or orthesis. I think it's meant to keep bones together in case of fragmented fracture. My dad soon went into the state of restimulation. He started having sudden problems with his lower leg and foot, it got swollen and inflammed. My mom, being the therapist, took him into the regression. In regression my dad had experienced that he was a trapper in North America or Canada in one of his past lives. He made a living by laying traps and catching fur animals. Fur-bearers have the best fur in winter. But in winter there's snow everywhere. And the snow makes it diffcult to see the traps. So the trapper one day accidentally stepped into his own steeltrap. It was in the middle of nowhere and there was nobody to save him, so he died caught with his foot in the trap, in winter. This was a traumatic death, which got wrongly subconsciously archived and it was restimulated by seeing a stranger with his leg suspended in irons.  Mystery solved, Dr. Watson Smiling

Teralek wrote:
 If we look at NDE reports like Pam Reynolds, Renee Pasarow, Vicky Noratuk among other "true" cases. One gets the distinct idea that the state of awareness without the brain is much more in tune with reality.

We hear things like: "everything made sense" "trying to explain the afterlife is an impossible task" "It's more real than anything else experienced" "I could find the answers to all the questions about life, about the planets, about God, about everything." They describe this world as a dream of numbeness and the other as the true reality. They want to stay there and never come back as if they finally come home. They often discribe an entire new world to experience.

Furthermore they see deceased family and friends, some have been there for some time. Very rarely I see any direct mention to reincarnation if at all. If it happens all the time there should be little people there. 

I see these people have valid data, but very incomplete picture of things. So they jump to completely unjustified conclusions. People report that after death their consciousness is raised, which is possible, beyond the biologic limitations of the brain. They report that they get into a highly attractive and pleasant environment. Often with their dead relatives. A wonderful place, as you say. And these are NDE reports, as you say. No wonder they don't hear of reincarnation, when they're hardly entered the place and when it seems so pleasant. They certainly won't be in hurry to get back the hard way. They'll be eager to have as much fun as they can.

However as I said, the picture is very incomplete. What these people describe is the astral realm and there is much more to it than the pleasant entrance facade. Astral matter shapes itself according to the forces of our astral body, the body of emotion and desire. This is why it is VERY deceptive and addictive. Most of astral forms were created by humans according to their desires and imagination. Not objective facts. It is an image of our world, our culture and our average person. In a sense, our eagerness to respond to all things astral/emotional/desirable is the root of all evil and irrationality of human race.

If you read up on other sources than NDE, mainly accomplished explorers of inner planes like Robert Allan Monroe, the picture will be a little different. It will include what you already know, but it will put it into a more complete frame of reference. If you allow me, I can point you towards a place where you can obtain these books easily. They're absolutely fascinating and better than any other NDE literature I've read, like Raymond A. Moody and so on.

Teralek wrote:
 So reincarnation doesn't make any sense. It's as if you just got to University, to a wonderful place, to your real home and suddenly for some weird reason you have to forget everything and go to kindergarden again.

We evolve... not de-evolve... so to go back, in most cases it would be a set back which is meaningless.

The best metaphor I've heard for the after life is this: The difference between life and the afterlife is the same as life in your mother's womb and life in the real world... that's how "alien" it is. So it would be as if you had to experience living in your mother's womb again! Pointless!

Yes, from the subjective, deceptive, wishful astral vantage point it certainly seems pointless to go back. But the astral world with all its seven sub-levels is only one subtle realm. If you read Robert A. Monroe, you'll see there are higher worlds and they have a say in what is important and what isn't. What we call person is not all of the human being. There is the so-called soul or superconsciousness, that is the true identity and power behind personal evolution. It constructs the personality and deliberately sends it to incarnate in the material world to gather the experience, explore the world and master all that there is to be mastered. The purpose is to create an ego module that allows the soul a fully controlled manifestation in lower worlds, mental, astral and physical. For thousands of years the ego does as it wants and develops little or not at all, enjoying the rough ride through incarnations and astral pleasures. Eventually the ego goes into a profound crisis and calls on for the soul for help. (or on a deity, but the soul  takes the call) This begins an era of hesitant but increasing cooperation of ego with the soul. The soul considers the ego as its instrument to be supported and protected, if necessary also disciplined and... taken away from incarnation. The ego sees the soul as a source of power and good ideas, and an unwelcome discipliner to rebel against to pursue its own less or more selfish or misguided interests. The two battle for control and eventually the soul wins. Anyway, the personal evolution is greatly speeded up, dozens of lives instead of tens of thousands.

I believe in the future there will be a superior science of psychology, focused on work with the superconsciousness, instead of the average Joe's consciousness or subconsciousness. The influence of the soul is a rare, but specific and profound power in people's lives. (though often veiled by personal and religious views) It will be a most interesting thing to study. 

If you remember any point, be it this: The astral world is the kindergarten. This world is the university.

 

Teralek wrote:
 But I certainly don't belive in the countless reincarnations of eastern religions
Why? Do you assume that most of people are incarnated? (why? astral sphere of Earth is bigger and doesn't need food) That there may be only one ego vehicle per one soul? Instead I don't believe that a more evolved ego (human) could possibly fit into animals or even insects, as some people believe.

Teralek wrote:
 What are other reasons for reincarnation is a good question... I don't know... but I think a premature early death is a strong candidate independently of suddeness or not. A personal extreme bond to the material world could also be a factor.
In my experience extreme materialists haven't ever heard of reincarnation and are so narrow-minded, that they prefer to haunt the place they wanted to keep, or alternatively retreat to the astral realm and live there in an imaginary reality-bubble shaped by their desires. They'll continue to do so, until they exhaust the emotional force that holds their astral body toghether. Then they'll be ready to reincarnate, but the seed of materialism will stay in them. But indeed you're right, in some cases a parent may incarnate as a grandchild right back into the household. We had such a case in my mother's friend family. It seems people "recycle" in their family lines pretty often, ocassionally taking in a relative stranger. 

Teralek wrote:
What are you talking about?!  no one can know how "advanced" one is, not even himself. One can have just an idea. I try really hard to get it right now... and I'm not so sure that I had already "things" with me that allowed me to be a step ahead. I sure NEVER had a experience about past lives

Advancedness is not just about ideas, it's also about personal qualities and the power to manifest them despite of the world's opposition. It's about personal charisma, influence on people and the number of people that we make an impact on. It's about the total quality of our bodily equipment to manifest the soul activity here and now in the world, less or more distorted by our imperfections.
Anyway, this scale is for informative purposes only, it applies to the esoteric model of human development and is provided by a clairvoyant source.
Nevermind Smiling

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Luminon! You sure like to

Luminon! You sure like to write!!! 

Well I'll try keep it short.

As you see I based a lot of what I'm convinced in NDEs. I really don't go much further than that... I still have my mind open to the rest. I don't have as many convictions as you.

Over the years life as taught me 2 things: 1st was trust my intuition, it is often correct.

2nd thing was to trust more the innocent and anonymous people who are not stars or pundits. So I trust more Pam Reynolds than Deepak Chopra. Of course you cannot take all the details from Pam as you can from Deepak. I still read people like Deepak but my critical analysis of them is way much deeper. It takes ages before I start to trust researchers of these fields. For example in NDEs I only have 2 to 4 researchers I trust because I dedicated some time analysing the subject.

To put it in another way I trust more people who don't sell books for a living.

I don't know anything about Robert Allan Monroe, but I might take a look when I have the time.

The picture may be incomplete yes but I don't mind that much... sure my curiosity still pushes me to know more. But the most important questions I was after I finally got the answer:

The answers are: It is possible to reconcile science with the idea of an afterlife; There is an afterlife; and the purpose of life is to learn utmost compassionate love for others because we are all linked together as entangled particles.

The mechanisms you talked about on how these traumatic memories might make it easy for a child to remember a previous life could be true. Hell! Anything could be true because we don't have any model on how awareness works without a brain! that's why you talk about subconscient and such. But how come all that which is stored in the soul mind blends together in the conscient and unconscient brain?

Since every single memory and aspect of you is imediately available in afterlife's awareness I doubt the "inner workings" of the mind are the same as in the brain.

I don't have any phobias that I know off. The only thing that bothers me sometimes is my shyness in groups of people. But I know this has nothing to do with past lives because I can pinpoint it to my early childhood. I wasn't born like this.
 

You are correct on saying that when reading raw NDE testimonies one may get deceptive views. But I think I can filter them out... most of them.

When I look at the details, clearly one sees what they want to see. Some see Jesus, others Mohamed, or whatever. But the way they describe it one can see they are experiencing the same thing. They just say what in their minds is the truth.

If you look to NDE's in general terms you get the real gold like the existence of a "world" which is "more real than real"; The knowing that we are all intrinsically connected (maybe in a super conscience) and that generous and utter compassion is the greatest thing, not all the knowledge in the world. A superior state of conscience where your hightned senses give the answers you need more quiclky and you actually know your place.

When you dwelve into these experiences you start to get the feeling that there is no point on coming back. Back to a slumbering existence, countless times, where you are forced to forget close to everything you learned in past lifes... why?! Pointless. You can gather more experience and faster on the other side.

I can see the truth behind Nietzsche's words when he said: "To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities - I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not - that one endures."

Some people struggle to understand this, I don't. There is more learning in pain than in pleasure. Your mother didn't really know what it feels like to have a son no matter how many books she read on the subject until she experiences the raw feeling of having one. Only when you experience it you are capable of valueing it correctly. So I can understand how this world prepare us to the next. But I think one full lifetime is enough

On the other side you literally bind with other souls in the afterlife. Sharing their experiences as if they were your own. It's a completely different existence. You can literally feel what others feel.

So I just don't see the need for "endless" returnings to this harsh place called human existence. As I told you I don't deny reincartion completely it can happen for a number of reasons: Like unexpected death and consequent inability to complete one's mission. As you said also stubborn materialists may also have a problem adapting to a completely new foreign reality; You may choose to come back because you want to help someone you love dearly... and I don't know, could be some more reasons... But that's all... We don't have to be bloody Jesus Christ before stopping the reincarnation cicle!! 

I don't agree that charisma is a reference for "advanceness"... Hitler was VERY charismatic and influenced a lot of people. Instead it has to do with your inner motivations, whether they are altruistic compassionate or not and that's mostly an intimate thing. So one can be the less known person in the world and still be the most "advanced"

In the end I may change my opinion in the future about reincarnation ... this is not a closed subject for me.

What is Gandhi rating in your clairvoyant source?

 

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote:Luminon! You

Teralek wrote:

Luminon! You sure like to write!!! 

Well I'll try keep it short.

We will? Oh. Smiling

Teralek wrote:
 As you see I based a lot of what I'm convinced in NDEs. I really don't go much further than that... I still have my mind open to the rest. I don't have as many convictions as you.

Over the years life as taught me 2 things: 1st was trust my intuition, it is often correct.

2nd thing was to trust more the innocent and anonymous people who are not stars or pundits. So I trust more Pam Reynolds than Deepak Chopra. Of course you cannot take all the details from Pam as you can from Deepak. I still read people like Deepak but my critical analysis of them is way much deeper. It takes ages before I start to trust researchers of these fields. For example in NDEs I only have 2 to 4 researchers I trust because I dedicated some time analysing the subject.

To put it in another way I trust more people who don't sell books for a living.

I don't know anything about Robert Allan Monroe, but I might take a look when I have the time.

The picture may be incomplete yes but I don't mind that much... sure my curiosity still pushes me to know more. But the most important questions I was after I finally got the answer:

The answers are: It is possible to reconcile science with the idea of an afterlife; There is an afterlife; and the purpose of life is to learn utmost compassionate love for others because we are all linked together as entangled particles.

Yes, let's say that can be called an ultimate goal. But there's a long road from here to there, many roads with many waypoints and challenges. How do we go from here to there? You look like someone more concerned with essence of things than their form, goal instead of the path. It's nothing wrong, just remember that reality tends to be complicated. 

What the people with NDE describe seems more like a welcome cocktail you get at the entrance. Things look different and more prosaic behind the scenes. If you assume that upon death and entering the astral realm everyone will become happy, spiritually advanced and morally superior, I think you'll be very disappointed. There is as much crime in astral realm as on Earth, where do you think all the criminals end up after death? Only they have it actually closer to us, because they tend to gravitate to lower and denser and darker astral levels. And they're interested in communication, in contacting mediums and gathering followers. They're interested in people to work for them and give them their time and energy. It's a form of parasitism. 

 

Teralek wrote:
 The mechanisms you talked about on how these traumatic memories might make it easy for a child to remember a previous life could be true. Hell! Anything could be true because we don't have any model on how awareness works without a brain! that's why you talk about subconscient and such. But how come all that which is stored in the soul mind blends together in the conscient and unconscient brain?

Since every single memory and aspect of you is imediately available in afterlife's awareness I doubt the "inner workings" of the mind are the same as in the brain.

I doubt that it is all. We might remember all our life with greater clarity, maybe even some previous lives, but I doubt normal people may remember all their previous lives. There is no reason for that, to consciously remember all that junk in subconsciousness. It would overwhelm us and prevent us from doing anything in this life. We may eventually develop to be able to do that, but we're far from it yet. 

My information is, that the soul (superconsciousness) is best equipped to manage past lives and provide a distilled wisdom and guidance from that experience. We could not deal with all these data. Just processing this life in astral realm and preparation for the next one may sometimes take many years.

 

Teralek wrote:
 You are correct on saying that when reading raw NDE testimonies one may get deceptive views. But I think I can filter them out... most of them.

When I look at the details, clearly one sees what they want to see. Some see Jesus, others Mohamed, or whatever. But the way they describe it one can see they are experiencing the same thing. They just say what in their minds is the truth.

If you look to NDE's in general terms you get the real gold like the existence of a "world" which is "more real than real"; The knowing that we are all intrinsically connected (maybe in a super conscience) and that generous and utter compassion is the greatest thing, not all the knowledge in the world. A superior state of conscience where your hightned senses give the answers you need more quiclky and you actually know your place.

When you dwelve into these experiences you start to get the feeling that there is no point on coming back. Back to a slumbering existence, countless times, where you are forced to forget close to everything you learned in past lifes... why?! Pointless. You can gather more experience and faster on the other side.

I can see the truth behind Nietzsche's words when he said: "To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities - I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not - that one endures."

Some people struggle to understand this, I don't. There is more learning in pain than in pleasure. Your mother didn't really know what it feels like to have a son no matter how many books she read on the subject until she experiences the raw feeling of having one. Only when you experience it you are capable of valueing it correctly. So I can understand how this world prepare us to the next. But I think one full lifetime is enough

On the other side you literally bind with other souls in the afterlife. Sharing their experiences as if they were your own. It's a completely different existence. You can literally feel what others feel.

So I just don't see the need for "endless" returnings to this harsh place called human existence. As I told you I don't deny reincartion completely it can happen for a number of reasons: Like unexpected death and consequent inability to complete one's mission. As you said also stubborn materialists may also have a problem adapting to a completely new foreign reality; You may choose to come back because you want to help someone you love dearly... and I don't know, could be some more reasons... But that's all... We don't have to be bloody Jesus Christ before stopping the reincarnation cicle!!  

Again, you make an assumption that the purpose of life is to learn something, to ascend somewhere, to become experienced. This is far from the complete picture. The main purpose is actually a work. Not theoretic learning, but a practical manipulation of material world. Human kingdom as a whole has a great importance for evolution of plant and animal kingdoms, although we haven't yet started doing this properly but soon we will. Humanity is sort of a divine intermediary between lower and higher kingdoms. For that purpose we need to stay here and now in the matter, we can't do this work as disembodied spirits. We need to channel ideas and energy from "above" (much more above than astral) and to transform the Earth conditions accordingly, including ourselves. It's good to be all learned and have good will, but that's for the purpose of an actual work. And a great part of that work is to control our astral nature and stop treating astral cooperation as something higher when it's actually lower, our astral nature is of animal origin.

 

Teralek wrote:
 I don't agree that charisma is a reference for "advanceness"... Hitler was VERY charismatic and influenced a lot of people. Instead it has to do with your inner motivations, whether they are altruistic compassionate or not and that's mostly an intimate thing. So one can be the less known person in the world and still be the most "advanced"

In the end I may change my opinion in the future about reincarnation ... this is not a closed subject for me.

What is Gandhi rating in your clairvoyant source? 

Altruistic inner motivation is a typical sign of the soul influence, but often in early stages where the ego is not yet very powerful. Later the ego wrestles with soul for power to use for its own purposes. Eventually the soul wins, but there is no law saying that an initiate must always be a nice guy. There are several forces that shape the personality and not all of them are loving. There are multiple paths to greatness. 

As for Gandhi Mohandas and Indira, they both had 2.0 degree at the time of their death, also Hitler. (who was much more powerful because of historical circumstances) Initiates around that degree are often busy with creating some kind of ideology as their "graduating project". It's not perfect, but they're often well-known. Lesser initiates below 1.6 may be often found in high political seats, surprisingly. 

I think this article should be interesting to you.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Yes, let's say

Luminon wrote:

Yes, let's say that can be called an ultimate goal. But there's a long road from here to there, many roads with many waypoints and challenges. How do we go from here to there? You look like someone more concerned with essence of things than their form, goal instead of the path. It's nothing wrong, just remember that reality tends to be complicated. 

What the people with NDE describe seems more like a welcome cocktail you get at the entrance. Things look different and more prosaic behind the scenes. If you assume that upon death and entering the astral realm everyone will become happy, spiritually advanced and morally superior, I think you'll be very disappointed. There is as much crime in astral realm as on Earth, where do you think all the criminals end up after death? Only they have it actually closer to us, because they tend to gravitate to lower and denser and darker astral levels. And they're interested in communication, in contacting mediums and gathering followers. They're interested in people to work for them and give them their time and energy. It's a form of parasitism. 

I agree with you. But I plan to be spiritually happy and morally superior when I get there. Moreover I don't necessary believe that people who are "criminals" need to come back here again.

About the path I figured out something: I stop worrying  too much about conducting my life - forcing the path. Now I let my life drive the way and I just enjoy the ride. My work is just the choices I do at each turn. Choices and consequences are the true work and teachings.

Luminon wrote:
I doubt that it is all. We might remember all our life with greater clarity, maybe even some previous lives, but I doubt normal people may remember all their previous lives. There is no reason for that, to consciously remember all that junk in subconsciousness. It would overwhelm us and prevent us from doing anything in this life. We may eventually develop to be able to do that, but we're far from it yet. 

My information is, that the soul (superconsciousness) is best equipped to manage past lives and provide a distilled wisdom and guidance from that experience. We could not deal with all these data. Just processing this life in astral realm and preparation for the next one may sometimes take many years.

If they had previous lifes they will, if they didn't have they don't... simple Smiling. It's not just remembering our lifes... " In my review I saw her standing against the wall crying while I called her names. I could not hear the words, but I felt her pain. Not only did I see the pain that I was causing to her in that moment, I also felt the full consequences that my action had on her life. I felt the pain that I had planted in her, and how this pain would turn into a scar that would stay with her all her life. I felt her being unhappy in her years of school, becoming less outgoing as a person later in life."

Doesn't take any time to do anything in afterlife. Time doesn't work the same way in there... People seem to stay there, as I've said.

Luminon wrote:
Again, you make an assumption that the purpose of life is to learn something, to ascend somewhere, to become experienced. This is far from the complete picture. The main purpose is actually a work. Not theoretic learning, but a practical manipulation of material world. Human kingdom as a whole has a great importance for evolution of plant and animal kingdoms, although we haven't yet started doing this properly but soon we will. Humanity is sort of a divine intermediary between lower and higher kingdoms. For that purpose we need to stay here and now in the matter, we can't do this work as disembodied spirits. We need to channel ideas and energy from "above" (much more above than astral) and to transform the Earth conditions accordingly, including ourselves. It's good to be all learned and have good will, but that's for the purpose of an actual work. And a great part of that work is to control our astral nature and stop treating astral cooperation as something higher when it's actually lower, our astral nature is of animal origin.

Yes I am making that "assumption" because that's what I believe. I don't believe in theosophy as I told you some time ago. I'm not a disciple of Helena Blavatsky, sorry. I have friends on this New Age fad and theosophy and I got away from all of that. They just want to make money with all those cheap psycology activities.

Whenever I read a book on theosophy I think I'm reading a Lord of the Rings book. So I still believe the reason we need to stay here is the same reason a baby needs to stay 9 months in the womb before being born... that's how changing the next experience is. I often don't understand anything and I get astonished how can people take in face value terms like "Masters" or "initiation". How people take face value that Blavatsky talked with invisible people. 

The future of mankind is simple. Soon we will start to fight one another for resources and many will lose compassion for others to protect their survival and their family. We will disrupt ecosystems and put our own civilization at risk. What will happen next is still open. It depends on us exclusively. Our responsability is to make Earth a better place for future generations. "We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our children".

 

Luminon wrote:
Altruistic inner motivation is a typical sign of the soul influence, but often in early stages where the ego is not yet very powerful. Later the ego wrestles with soul for power to use for its own purposes. Eventually the soul wins, but there is no law saying that an initiate must always be a nice guy. There are several forces that shape the personality and not all of them are loving. There are multiple paths to greatness. 

As for Gandhi Mohandas and Indira, they both had 2.0 degree at the time of their death, also Hitler. (who was much more powerful because of historical circumstances) Initiates around that degree are often busy with creating some kind of ideology as their "graduating project". It's not perfect, but they're often well-known. Lesser initiates below 1.6 may be often found in high political seats, surprisingly. 

I think this article should be interesting to you.

Altruistic motivation is a sign of moral evolution. The soul is you. You have this intrinsic soul who influences your personality beyond genetic and nurture influences. Your disembodied soul knows more that the brain/soul you because it can access more information, faster and unobstructed by physical impediments. Your full potential is contained because you live in a physical body.

People who don't see human life as equally valuable as a starting point are not advanced. People who don't show any mercy or compassion for others are not advanced. sorry. You want a more terrible example of a leader? Genghis Khan. They where probably one of the most terrible thing that walked this earth. Were there more people on earth in those years and the death toll would be unmatched

The mark of death, disregard and indiference show people who don't know who they are, how wrong they are and how low they are. The most common crime is the crime of selfishness. I gave one example of that in one recent post.

I'm not perfect. But I know the way and I'm trying to get better.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Reincarnation is just

Reincarnation is just bullshit woo, PERIOD!

Once the structure of your brain dies and decays, you are dead. A single atom is not an entire brain nor a living thing once broken down to it's single form, thus our consciousness does not get passed on.

Superstition is superstition. No one was a rat or a frog in a prior life.

Our consciousness is nothing more than an outcome, just like speed is an outcome. If your car breaks down beyond repair or gets totaled it cannot speed, much less transfer that speed to another car.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote:Luminon

Teralek wrote:

Luminon wrote:

Yes, let's say that can be called an ultimate goal. But there's a long road from here to there, many roads with many waypoints and challenges. How do we go from here to there? You look like someone more concerned with essence of things than their form, goal instead of the path. It's nothing wrong, just remember that reality tends to be complicated. 

What the people with NDE describe seems more like a welcome cocktail you get at the entrance. Things look different and more prosaic behind the scenes. If you assume that upon death and entering the astral realm everyone will become happy, spiritually advanced and morally superior, I think you'll be very disappointed. There is as much crime in astral realm as on Earth, where do you think all the criminals end up after death? Only they have it actually closer to us, because they tend to gravitate to lower and denser and darker astral levels. And they're interested in communication, in contacting mediums and gathering followers. They're interested in people to work for them and give them their time and energy. It's a form of parasitism. 

I agree with you. But I plan to be spiritually happy and morally superior when I get there. Moreover I don't necessary believe that people who are "criminals" need to come back here again.

About the path I figured out something: I stop worrying  too much about conducting my life - forcing the path. Now I let my life drive the way and I just enjoy the ride. My work is just the choices I do at each turn. Choices and consequences are the true work and teachings.

Luminon wrote:
I doubt that it is all. We might remember all our life with greater clarity, maybe even some previous lives, but I doubt normal people may remember all their previous lives. There is no reason for that, to consciously remember all that junk in subconsciousness. It would overwhelm us and prevent us from doing anything in this life. We may eventually develop to be able to do that, but we're far from it yet. 

My information is, that the soul (superconsciousness) is best equipped to manage past lives and provide a distilled wisdom and guidance from that experience. We could not deal with all these data. Just processing this life in astral realm and preparation for the next one may sometimes take many years.

If they had previous lifes they will, if they didn't have they don't... simple Smiling. It's not just remembering our lifes... " In my review I saw her standing against the wall crying while I called her names. I could not hear the words, but I felt her pain. Not only did I see the pain that I was causing to her in that moment, I also felt the full consequences that my action had on her life. I felt the pain that I had planted in her, and how this pain would turn into a scar that would stay with her all her life. I felt her being unhappy in her years of school, becoming less outgoing as a person later in life."

Doesn't take any time to do anything in afterlife. Time doesn't work the same way in there... People seem to stay there, as I've said.

Luminon wrote:
Again, you make an assumption that the purpose of life is to learn something, to ascend somewhere, to become experienced. This is far from the complete picture. The main purpose is actually a work. Not theoretic learning, but a practical manipulation of material world. Human kingdom as a whole has a great importance for evolution of plant and animal kingdoms, although we haven't yet started doing this properly but soon we will. Humanity is sort of a divine intermediary between lower and higher kingdoms. For that purpose we need to stay here and now in the matter, we can't do this work as disembodied spirits. We need to channel ideas and energy from "above" (much more above than astral) and to transform the Earth conditions accordingly, including ourselves. It's good to be all learned and have good will, but that's for the purpose of an actual work. And a great part of that work is to control our astral nature and stop treating astral cooperation as something higher when it's actually lower, our astral nature is of animal origin.

Yes I am making that "assumption" because that's what I believe. I don't believe in theosophy as I told you some time ago. I'm not a disciple of Helena Blavatsky, sorry. I have friends on this New Age fad and theosophy and I got away from all of that. They just want to make money with all those cheap psycology activities.

Whenever I read a book on theosophy I think I'm reading a Lord of the Rings book. So I still believe the reason we need to stay here is the same reason a baby needs to stay 9 months in the womb before being born... that's how changing the next experience is. I often don't understand anything and I get astonished how can people take in face value terms like "Masters" or "initiation". How people take face value that Blavatsky talked with invisible people. 

The future of mankind is simple. Soon we will start to fight one another for resources and many will lose compassion for others to protect their survival and their family. We will disrupt ecosystems and put our own civilization at risk. What will happen next is still open. It depends on us exclusively. Our responsability is to make Earth a better place for future generations. "We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our children".

 

Luminon wrote:
Altruistic inner motivation is a typical sign of the soul influence, but often in early stages where the ego is not yet very powerful. Later the ego wrestles with soul for power to use for its own purposes. Eventually the soul wins, but there is no law saying that an initiate must always be a nice guy. There are several forces that shape the personality and not all of them are loving. There are multiple paths to greatness. 

As for Gandhi Mohandas and Indira, they both had 2.0 degree at the time of their death, also Hitler. (who was much more powerful because of historical circumstances) Initiates around that degree are often busy with creating some kind of ideology as their "graduating project". It's not perfect, but they're often well-known. Lesser initiates below 1.6 may be often found in high political seats, surprisingly. 

I think this article should be interesting to you.

Altruistic motivation is a sign of moral evolution. The soul is you. You have this intrinsic soul who influences your personality beyond genetic and nurture influences. Your disembodied soul knows more that the brain/soul you because it can access more information, faster and unobstructed by physical impediments. Your full potential is contained because you live in a physical body.

People who don't see human life as equally valuable as a starting point are not advanced. People who don't show any mercy or compassion for others are not advanced. sorry. You want a more terrible example of a leader? Genghis Khan. They where probably one of the most terrible thing that walked this earth. Were there more people on earth in those years and the death toll would be unmatched

The mark of death, disregard and indiference show people who don't know who they are, how wrong they are and how low they are. The most common crime is the crime of selfishness. I gave one example of that in one recent post.

I'm not perfect. But I know the way and I'm trying to get better.

What a steamy pile of utopia pony loaf. There is no such thing as a soul. What we consider "I' is nothing more than our brains in motion. Once our brain dies there is not motion, no "I".

You were nothing before you were born and you will be nothing after you die. What causes you to cling to this bullshit, is the fear of being finite. Accepting that this is all there is should be no different than accepting that a tree dies or a pet dies. It does not mean we have to be fatalistic or negative just because we accept reality.

Consciousness is not a thing, but an outcome. It is totally dependent on the material processes that lead to that outcome. Just like if you have no car engine, or gas peddle, you cannot speed.

There is no fucking mystery to life. Consciousness is not an invention of a cosmic super hero. It is an outcome of evolution.

Knowing that does not take away my sense of awe or appreciation of life. It just means I don't assign any part of reality, both the good or the bad, to bullshit superstition.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
AND ANOTHER THING, DO NOT

AND ANOTHER THING, DO NOT TRY THE FOLLOWING AT HOME. What I am about to type is merely an example of the absurdity of claiming their is a separation of "I" from the material brain.

If that were true, then you should be able to blow your brains out with a shotgun and then prove in a lab that you survives you. We could take samples of 2 or 3,000 people and conduct that experiment. Name me one person willing to do that. NOT ME.

Again, no human ever in our species history has survived the obliteration of their brain. The idea of an afterlife is merely the flaw of evolution in that comic book stories arise from our imaginations because of our real desire to survive.

Dawkins aptly describes this flaw in "The God Delusion" as the moth mistaking the light bulb for moonlight.

"Afterlife" is merely a sugar pill. It can act as a coping mechanism, but it is as real as the sun being a god. The sun being a god acted as a sugar pill that helped the Ancient Egyptians survive for 3,000 years, but the sun, in reality was never a god. The motif of an after life is just another sugar pill.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
If reincarnation was

If reincarnation was actually taking place, we'd excpect every birth to come nine months after a death, instead of nine months after getting busy.

 

The earth's population is way bigger than it used to be.  Clearly humans aren't just the same fixed group of souls coming by again and again and again.  That kind of process doesn't allow for growth of a population.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote:I agree with

Teralek wrote:

I agree with you. But I plan to be spiritually happy and morally superior when I get there. Moreover I don't necessary believe that people who are "criminals" need to come back here again.

About the path I figured out something: I stop worrying  too much about conducting my life - forcing the path. Now I let my life drive the way and I just enjoy the ride. My work is just the choices I do at each turn. Choices and consequences are the true work and teachings.

OK, I suppose if you stay open-minded, you just adapt to a situation whatever it turns out to be. Sometimes less is more. Maybe you can remember my opinion just in case it turns out to be a useful information.

I just suspect that the dream activity uses the same astral body as the afterlife, the animal part of us. If my dream activity is anything to judge by, then I don't really feel spiritual when I wake up. Actually, I feel like a pig, just like everyone else, I suppose. Granted, in afterlife I should be much more conscious, but it changes nothing on my suspicion that astral body is mostly an animal equipment, held together by desires and illusions, highest and lowest and all in betwen. My best sources say it's alike to a drug rush mistaken for a real enlightenment, fairy gold and Hollywood tinsel. And escapism, which I struggle with.

Teralek wrote:
 Yes I am making that "assumption" because that's what I believe. I don't believe in theosophy as I told you some time ago. I'm not a disciple of Helena Blavatsky, sorry. I have friends on this New Age fad and theosophy and I got away from all of that. They just want to make money with all those cheap psycology activities.
Yeah, stay away from New Age, that's what I'm trying to tell you. New Age is just stealing all fancy words and putting them back together in random order that they sound good but make no sense at all. Theosophy precedes NA by half a century or so. 

Btw, do you have any reasons for your beliefs, or you go by the intuition? You may filter out explicit lies, but what about lies of holding back information?

Teralek wrote:
 Whenever I read a book on theosophy I think I'm reading a Lord of the Rings book. So I still believe the reason we need to stay here is the same reason a baby needs to stay 9 months in the womb before being born... that's how changing the next experience is. I often don't understand anything and I get astonished how can people take in face value terms like "Masters" or "initiation". How people take face value that Blavatsky talked with invisible people.
Well, they aren't that invisible when they want to. People who offer their services to our common cause sooner or later get to see enough evidence that they are real or may be real. I prefer a hands-on experience correlated with a written teaching as the second best thing to objective science. I tend to give low priority to beliefs, because things can be completely different than we believe and I was wrong more than once. One thing we can always do is to check our beliefs for consistency or logic. I have a deep belief that reality is logical and consistent.

Teralek wrote:
 The future of mankind is simple. Soon we will start to fight one another for resources and many will lose compassion for others to protect their survival and their family. We will disrupt ecosystems and put our own civilization at risk. What will happen next is still open. It depends on us exclusively. Our responsability is to make Earth a better place for future generations. "We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our children".
 Damn, what a good quote! I'll remember that.

 

Teralek wrote:
 People who don't see human life as equally valuable as a starting point are not advanced. People who don't show any mercy or compassion for others are not advanced. sorry. You want a more terrible example of a leader? Genghis Khan. They where probably one of the most terrible thing that walked this earth. Were there more people on earth in those years and the death toll would be unmatched

The mark of death, disregard and indiference show people who don't know who they are, how wrong they are and how low they are. The most common crime is the crime of selfishness. I gave one example of that in one recent post.

I'm not perfect. But I know the way and I'm trying to get better. 

All right, this tells very much about you. Nice to meet you. I feel what you mean. But let's make a libation to the heartless god of formal logic. This is not about criticism, just asking some hard questions and examination how much bulletproof your beliefs are. I hope it will not feel unwelcome but instead it will help you to put your worldview into more specific words - and make it easier to explain to others. You of course don't have to know everything. 

What's so terrible about death? If afterlife is such a wonderful, beautiful place, what is wrong about sending people there? What if all these warlords and mass murderers actually helped masses of people into heaven? What is the reason for staying here, in the valley of tears? 

What if there are great leaders who see a higher goal and grand purpose for humanity? Yet this goal will probably involve some deaths in the process? Does it make the goal unworthy? In this case even building a car factory would be wrong, because every such a big industrial project has statistically inevitable injuries and deaths. So where is the difference? 

Let's say, if all human life is equally valuable, how do we distinguish it? How do we make tough decisions about who lives and who dies? What is your opinion on abortion and plugging out people in vegetative state of coma? Or saving life of a newborn child vs the mother? I suppose you'd choose by number of lives saved vs. number of lives sacrificed, whenever possible.

What is so significant about most of people's lives, that they do not need to reincarnate by default? To me most of people seem... small. Small hearts, small minds, small worlds. And there are greater people. It is not easy to see the greater people, but it's possible if you know what to look for. But even they are not perfect and would benefit from repeated incarnations. Also, the world would benefit if they returned. People would benefit from that. Would it be moral to refuse to reincarnate and help others grow? What is the difference from escapism?

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:What a steamy

Brian37 wrote:

What a steamy pile of utopia pony loaf. There is no such thing as a soul. What we consider "I' is nothing more than our brains in motion. Once our brain dies there is not motion, no "I".

By soul I always mean something a different, the idea of superconsciousness. If Freud said we are composed of id, ego and superego, then the soul is Super - Ego, something that inspires us of geniality and divinity. Something that is super-rational, instantly conscious without emotion or a rational thinking process. For many people including myself this is a very real experience. A very real presence in our mind, in our nerve system. It is pretty much an undiscovered realm of psychology, a rare psychologic phenomenon and one often masked by people's religious convictions. It is not really something we consider "I", except of some ecstatic and inspired moments. 

Brian37 wrote:
 You were nothing before you were born and you will be nothing after you die. What causes you to cling to this bullshit, is the fear of being finite. Accepting that this is all there is should be no different than accepting that a tree dies or a pet dies. It does not mean we have to be fatalistic or negative just because we accept reality.

Consciousness is not a thing, but an outcome. It is totally dependent on the material processes that lead to that outcome. Just like if you have no car engine, or gas peddle, you cannot speed.

I know I'm finite, I have experienced it. Maybe I think I'm a little more permanent than you think, but the outcome should be the same. During meditation I once experienced a state of dis-identification, where myself ceased to exist. It was weird and in retrospective a little scary, but there was nothing sad or tragical about it. At the moment there wasn't anybody to worry about it, anyway. Just so you know that any more explorations we choose to make aren't meant to imagine things for our comfort. 

Brian37 wrote:
 There is no fucking mystery to life. Consciousness is not an invention of a cosmic super hero. It is an outcome of evolution.

Knowing that does not take away my sense of awe or appreciation of life. It just means I don't assign any part of reality, both the good or the bad, to bullshit superstition. 

What you say is an outcome to evolution, but that's not what I mean. The soul as my experience and teachings describe it has nothing to do with evolution. We are perfectly able to live without it. We don't need it for any of our common activities. It doesn't give us any survival advantage, unless we invest in it considerably for several incarnations. And yet maybe it is more valuable than ourselves.

Anyway, I don't trust you about mysteries. I know how popular this is today, the militant unapologetic mentality, but in some ways it's a limitation on your mind. You live in a country where mysteries are used as leverage for religious political forces. So you're compelled to make a stand against that and to tie up as many loose ends of theories as you can to present a bulletproof natural image of the world against the religious one. And don't look for more mysteries, more loose ends in the sensitive areas. There's no place for that in the war of rationality against irrationality. As the scientist Kanarev said, the scientific truth is never born in dispute. 

I think the science faces a dilemma, to form a strong opposition, yet to be still able of development and change. The result is a compromise, there's a lot of development, but it's narrowly specialized on "kosher" topics. I can't help but wonder how much it is the militant rationality and how much politics in funding.

 

 

Zaq wrote:
If reincarnation was actually taking place, we'd excpect every birth to come nine months after a death, instead of nine months after getting busy.

The earth's population is way bigger than it used to be.  Clearly humans aren't just the same fixed group of souls coming by again and again and again.  That kind of process doesn't allow for growth of a population.

My sources say that on the inner planes there's about 60 billion souls, most of them waiting in their natural timeless blissful state. And the soul is not the same as personality, it can construct multiple personalities and send them into incarnation as separate people (not anew every time, of course), even several at once. In a sense our body and mind is what materialists say, kind of a machine, a temporary instrument. It may be quite a deep realization for some of us that we can't try to be and to pretend to be a second soul, a second superconsciousness, we're not really built for that.
In any case, we shouldn't rely on numbers. We shouldn't count the landing exploratory modules and think it says anything about the number of spaceships in orbit.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:My sources say

Luminon wrote:

My sources say that on the inner planes there's about 60 billion souls, most of them waiting in their natural timeless blissful state. And the soul is not the same as personality, it can construct multiple personalities and send them into incarnation as separate people (not anew every time, of course), even several at once. In a sense our body and mind is what materialists say, kind of a machine, a temporary instrument. It may be quite a deep realization for some of us that we can't try to be and to pretend to be a second soul, a second superconsciousness, we're not really built for that.
In any case, we shouldn't rely on numbers. We shouldn't count the landing exploratory modules and think it says anything about the number of spaceships in orbit.

And what I hear is "My hypothesis is unfalsifiable."

Here's an idea, how about you tell me what conceivable observation would be utterly impossible if people are in fact getting reincarnated?

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Zaq wrote:Luminon wrote:My

Zaq wrote:

Luminon wrote:

My sources say that on the inner planes there's about 60 billion souls, most of them waiting in their natural timeless blissful state. And the soul is not the same as personality, it can construct multiple personalities and send them into incarnation as separate people (not anew every time, of course), even several at once. In a sense our body and mind is what materialists say, kind of a machine, a temporary instrument. It may be quite a deep realization for some of us that we can't try to be and to pretend to be a second soul, a second superconsciousness, we're not really built for that.
In any case, we shouldn't rely on numbers. We shouldn't count the landing exploratory modules and think it says anything about the number of spaceships in orbit.

 

Luminon... what about aliens? If there are aliens there should be much more souls.

Zaq wrote:
And what I hear is "My hypothesis is unfalsifiable."

Yes, I hear this too when one is defending determinism.

Zaq wrote:
Here's an idea, how about you tell me what conceivable observation would be utterly impossible if people are in fact getting reincarnated?

Ok, let's see...maybe it would be impossible to observe that your consciousness dies when your brain does. How do you prove that your conscience doesn't die? You can't. Not at this moment at least.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:I just suspect

Luminon wrote:

I just suspect that the dream activity uses the same astral body as the afterlife, the animal part of us. If my dream activity is anything to judge by, then I don't really feel spiritual when I wake up. Actually, I feel like a pig, just like everyone else, I suppose. Granted, in afterlife I should be much more conscious, but it changes nothing on my suspicion that astral body is mostly an animal equipment, held together by desires and illusions, highest and lowest and all in betwen. My best sources say it's alike to a drug rush mistaken for a real enlightenment, fairy gold and Hollywood tinsel. And escapism, which I struggle with.

I dont' believe this. From my studies NDEs are SO different and so more intense that they are utterly different from ANY dream you can have.

But I have that feeling too, that our soul, even on the other plane keeps lots of vices and desires that had on this plane. And this can keep the soul "stuck" on the earthly plane. The profound love experimented on the other side comes with complete and utter "nakedness". In other words, everything that you are and did will be known. In many reports, some had feelings of absolute shame and undeserving. So this many times this self alienates people from this higher plane. They feel they are not ready, undeserving, ashamed and they can't stay in the "light". Will this be a reason to come back to Earth? Possibly. But I have no evidence or indication of such.
 

Luminon wrote:
Btw, do you have any reasons for your beliefs, or you go by the intuition? You may filter out explicit lies, but what about lies of holding back information?

To put it briefly. I had an experience when I was 5-7 years old. This experience is not explainable in naturalistic scientific ways. I lived for a long time with this and did a Biotechnology course... so I'm also all into science.

At some point in my life my curiosity and lack of answers from science and religion led me on a search. Nothing convinced me of the truth. Let's just say that I used my intuition, the seemingly honest NDE research done by MDs and published in scientific magazines and my experience to reach the beliefs I have today. Some pieces of the puzzle started to come together. There is still a lot of unknown but I already know so much more than many that I don't mind the unknown.

Reincarnation is an unknown. It probably happens, but the mechanism is an unknown for me. But I'm not worried about it too much. The conventional mechanism of reincartion did not convince me as you see.

Today I feel that science is blind to a big piece of truth about reality. Religion is a fairy tale and much of the New Age thing ( on which I include theosophy) is 95% a money making scam. So I'm very selective and very strict on what I accept as truth because since science has no step on this field I have to do ALL the "filtering". Science is the best filter of truth. However I cannot use it here, I'm alone in this search. Only some brave scientists risk their careers exploring this "dark" side of reality. The woo woo stuff Smiling

 

Luminon wrote:
Well, they aren't that invisible when they want to. People who offer their services to our common cause sooner or later get to see enough evidence that they are real or may be real. I prefer a hands-on experience correlated with a written teaching as the second best thing to objective science. I tend to give low priority to beliefs, because things can be completely different than we believe and I was wrong more than once. One thing we can always do is to check our beliefs for consistency or logic. I have a deep belief that reality is logical and consistent.

Well I still believe that theosofy was a scam of Helena Blavatsky. I read a book or two and spoke to some people who claimed to study theosophy and I was far from being convinced. I also think that reality must be logical. I have many unknowns though.

There was only one religion that I admire since I found of it's existence: the Bahai faith. Most of what they say makes perfect sense. The most important reason I'm not Bahai is because I don't believe in the infallibility of books or prophets.

 

Luminon wrote:
 All right, this tells very much about you. Nice to meet you. I feel what you mean. But let's make a libation to the heartless god of formal logic. This is not about criticism, just asking some hard questions and examination how much bulletproof your beliefs are. I hope it will not feel unwelcome but instead it will help you to put your worldview into more specific words - and make it easier to explain to others. You of course don't have to know everything. 

What's so terrible about death? If afterlife is such a wonderful, beautiful place, what is wrong about sending people there? What if all these warlords and mass murderers actually helped masses of people into heaven? What is the reason for staying here, in the valley of tears? 
 

You are never unwelcome Smiling And those are very good questions I have thought myself.

Nothing is terrible about death. Only our biological STRONG wish to stay alive makes it terrible. That and the deep and dreaded fear of oblivion most people feel. Atheists and theists alike. (yes most people who believe, don't really believe, they just fear NOT believing...). I actually don't suffer as much with the death of friends and such, since I have these beliefs. Because I'm absolutely sure they are still alive and near, and I will see them again.

From all the research and experiences it also seems obvious that we have some sort of task to do here. Like a baby has a task of growing strong in the womb to survive life outside. The voluntary interruption of that task (like murder or suicide) is a grave offense to this order of things somehow. As if we are betraing a great trust that was put on us. This trust has to do with our mission which seems to be connected with helping others with their own tasks and help ourselves in the process

Finally I confess that I'm still battling with the question of why we really need to be in the material world. I'm still waiting for an answer that convinces me.

 

Luminon wrote:
What if there are great leaders who see a higher goal and grand purpose for humanity? Yet this goal will probably involve some deaths in the process? Does it make the goal unworthy? In this case even building a car factory would be wrong, because every such a big industrial project has statistically inevitable injuries and deaths. So where is the difference? 

the difference lies on motivation. There are accidental deaths and there are deaths made on purpose. The accidental are perfectly OK in reasonable situations (obviously) the others are profoundly reprehensible.

Hitler saw a higher goal and purpose in humanity... yet this goal involve some deaths in the process... yes it makes the goal unworthy!

Living is a risk... not just building a car factory. Going on a plain can kill you. Should we ban plains because you can statistically die from them? No because it's no intentional and it's voluntary. As long as we do everything possible to increase our safety. Like do a correct maintenance on the plains. This has everything to do with intentions and motivations.

 

Luminon wrote:
Let's say, if all human life is equally valuable, how do we distinguish it? How do we make tough decisions about who lives and who dies? What is your opinion on abortion and plugging out people in vegetative state of coma? Or saving life of a newborn child vs the mother? I suppose you'd choose by number of lives saved vs. number of lives sacrificed, whenever possible.

Human "awareness" or life only starts when higher brainwaves in the cortex start. So I agree with abortions made previous to this, not after. I agree on pulling the plug on vegetative people, specially if they are brain dead because nobody's home... mother vs. son is a tough decision... I don't know about that one, but I have a tendency for the son, because in most cases that's what the mother would have wanted. Altruistic decisions seem to be highly praised. Yes in most cases I would choose the utilitary approach in saving lives... however I'm behind Kant too on the focus in the agent as the start of ethics. So for example if an assassin would tell me to choose between my brother or my sister, and if I didn't he would kill both... the best thing to do, I think, would be to not choose anything and the assassin killed both.

The real thing here is the Agent! If I didn't choose anything here I would be absent from any decision. The ONLY agent would be the assassin. So I'm not 100% utilitarian in ethics.

I also don't agree with the extent of life at any cost. When people are really old and sick they should be allowed to reject medicin and that's not a "sin", not even for the sick person.

 

Luminon wrote:
What is so significant about most of people's lives, that they do not need to reincarnate by default? To me most of people seem... small. Small hearts, small minds, small worlds. And there are greater people. It is not easy to see the greater people, but it's possible if you know what to look for. But even they are not perfect and would benefit from repeated incarnations. Also, the world would benefit if they returned. People would benefit from that. Would it be moral to refuse to reincarnate and help others grow? What is the difference from escapism?

Let me tell you something - Greatness can be on the lady that goes clean toilets everyday and knows nothing about internet, teosophy, God, or politics... No one knows her.

You can only see greatness if your heart is so humble that "even the dust would step on you"... ok this last part was Gandhi... he exageratted everything Sticking out tongue ... intentions and motivations my friend... everything is in there.

No one knows who will reincarnate or not. not me, not you. I just believe that there is another world out there where we can grow more. This one is just a preparation stage. We may come here more than once, I think that happens, but we don't need to complete our evolution here. That's not even possible... this state of being is too limited

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Zaq wrote:And what I hear is

Zaq wrote:

And what I hear is "My hypothesis is unfalsifiable."

Here's an idea, how about you tell me what conceivable observation would be utterly impossible if people are in fact getting reincarnated?

Besides Christian hell or heaven... You know the experiments of weighing dying people by Germans in 1988. If their weight had increased or remained exactly the same upon death instead of decreasing, that would be something. (it's just the weight of vital ethers)

Or if we can use the numerous techniques of measuring or imaging the etheric or astral body upon death, to prove that there is actually nothing leaving the body, that would again be something. You know, the idea is that this bright whitish envelope of vital ethers and larger colourful aura that clairvoyants can see (and I had a look as well) detaches (expels itself through one of the chakras) and continues to exist after biologic death. If it doesn't, we're done for.

If you have no idea what I mean, blame the science for not funding these areas of research. We could have a hi-tech version of Reich's vitality detector by now. Or HD polycontrast interference photography of Dr. Oldfield. Just non-existence of these bodies would be sufficient to disprove everything. Of course it would raise many questions, like what the hell was I doing most of my life, working with these subtle energies and stuff. 

 

 

Teralek wrote:

 I dont' believe this. From my studies NDEs are SO different and so more intense that they are utterly different from ANY dream you can have. But I have that feeling too, that our soul, even on the other plane keeps lots of vices and desires that had on this plane. And this can keep the soul "stuck" on the earthly plane. The profound love experimented on the other side comes with complete and utter "nakedness". In other words, everything that you are and did will be known. In many reports, some had feelings of absolute shame and undeserving. So this many times this self alienates people from this higher plane. They feel they are not ready, undeserving, ashamed and they can't stay in the "light". Will this be a reason to come back to Earth? Possibly. But I have no evidence or indication of such.

That's it, in my experience NDE as described feels like an intervention of the soul to deliberately help its person in a diffcult situation. I think it should not be taken as a standard for all death and afterlife. My sources describe that this blissful state is permanent only on the soul level, which is where the personality gets when and if the astral body dissolves. And that takes time. Many crude personalities prefer to stay on lower, darker astral levels, they feel better there anyway. They could not stay in the full light of the upper levels or the soul level. It takes time until the cruder layers of the astral body dissolve. It is curious that our nature and moods during life determine the material composition of the astral body after death and speed of its dissolution and ascension.

Robert Allan Monroe had also technical projects besides his personal explorations. He invented sound technology to change consciousness and to "focus" it on various levels of both awareness and astral realm. And these "focuses" are not particularly advanced, for the most part. There are many steps between what I describe and what you describe. I can't explain it properly, but it makes lots of sense with his explorations. If you could only read his books, you'd see. Monroe is special because he was not a spiritual person at all, but he very detailedly described the whole Theosophic worldview from an independent point of view.

Teralek wrote:
 To put it briefly. I had an experience when I was 5-7 years old. This experience is not explainable in naturalistic scientific ways. I lived for a long time with this and did a Biotechnology course... so I'm also all into science.

At some point in my life my curiosity and lack of answers from science and religion led me on a search. Nothing convinced me of the truth. Let's just say that I used my intuition, the seemingly honest NDE research done by MDs and published in scientific magazines and my experience to reach the beliefs I have today. Some pieces of the puzzle started to come together. There is still a lot of unknown but I already know so much more than many that I don't mind the unknown.

Reincarnation is an unknown. It probably happens, but the mechanism is an unknown for me. But I'm not worried about it too much. The conventional mechanism of reincartion did not convince me as you see.

Today I feel that science is blind to a big piece of truth about reality. Religion is a fairy tale and much of the New Age thing ( on which I include theosophy) is 95% a money making scam. So I'm very selective and very strict on what I accept as truth because since science has no step on this field I have to do ALL the "filtering". Science is the best filter of truth. However I cannot use it here, I'm alone in this search. Only some brave scientists risk their careers exploring this "dark" side of reality. The woo woo stuff Smiling 

Well I still believe that theosofy was a scam of Helena Blavatsky. I read a book or two and spoke to some people who claimed to study theosophy and I was far from being convinced. I also think that reality must be logical. I have many unknowns though.

Yes, I agree very much. I also experienced things that science can't explain - and neither can religion Smiling 

I'd just add that Theosophy is a very intellectual teaching, it's not a mainstream new age woo and it has a much higher standard. I consider some of its main figures to be legit, like Alice Bailey, Helena and Nikolaj Roerich and the still living Benjamin Creme. But I do not trust the others, Leadbeaters, Besants and Steiners and most of people who ever since used Theosophic materials. There were many rotten apples, some from the beginning, some got spoiled later. No organization is perfect, organizations compete and squabble and split. I only trust in individuals who display the signs of a contact with Masters, who are the kind of character that Masters like to choose for disciples. And they're rather strict about that. 

Teralek wrote:
 There was only one religion that I admire since I found of it's existence: the Bahai faith. Most of what they say makes perfect sense. The most important reason I'm not Bahai is because I don't believe in the infallibility of books or prophets.
Yes, my parents also consider the Bahai religion very sympathetic and likable. They had a good feeling of it when they encountered it once long ago.

Teralek wrote:
 Finally I confess that I'm still battling with the question of why we really need to be in the material world. I'm still waiting for an answer that convinces me.
I'd like you to consider a different look at this. What if we prepare in higher worlds between the lives for our tasks here? What if here is the actual work to do, not up there?  If everything up there is mostly all right, there is not nearly as much to do. We can prepare there, learn and plan and even do some work, but the actual main progress is done down here on Earth, in the diffcult conditions. It is like a proverbial "God's kingdom" growing not from below upwards, but descending from above, being brought from above by our work. Our work is to bring higher qualities from higher worlds and manifest them here, materially. Doing it the opposite way would be pointless, like proverbially carrying wood into the forest or smuggling opium to Afghanistan Smiling

Teralek wrote:
 Human "awareness" or life only starts when higher brainwaves in the cortex start. So I agree with abortions made previous to this, not after. I agree on pulling the plug on vegetative people, specially if they are brain dead because nobody's home... mother vs. son is a tough decision... I don't know about that one, but I have a tendency for the son, because in most cases that's what the mother would have wanted. Altruistic decisions seem to be highly praised. Yes in most cases I would choose the utilitary approach in saving lives... however I'm behind Kant too on the focus in the agent as the start of ethics. So for example if an assassin would tell me to choose between my brother or my sister, and if I didn't he would kill both... the best thing to do, I think, would be to not choose anything and the assassin killed both.

The real thing here is the Agent! If I didn't choose anything here I would be absent from any decision. The ONLY agent would be the assassin. So I'm not 100% utilitarian in ethics.

Very well, and if possible there is one more choice, to attack and kill the assassin Smiling

Teralek wrote:
 Let me tell you something - Greatness can be on the lady that goes clean toilets everyday and knows nothing about internet, teosophy, God, or politics... No one knows her.

You can only see greatness if your heart is so humble that "even the dust would step on you"... ok this last part was Gandhi... he exageratted everything Sticking out tongue ... intentions and motivations my friend... everything is in there.

No one knows who will reincarnate or not. not me, not you. I just believe that there is another world out there where we can grow more. This one is just a preparation stage. We may come here more than once, I think that happens, but we don't need to complete our evolution here. That's not even possible... thisstate of being is too limited

Yes, there can be a greatness in a lady who cleans toilets, but she must have misused that in her past life very much and the toilets are now her karma Smiling Other than that, I know a great initiate, if that's the right word. But she doesn't have any specially high ideals, she just works. She has the agenda and she sometimes grumbles about it, but she gets lots of work done. And if that work requires yelling some sense into people or kicking an ass or two, she must do it. The initiate is literally neurologically compelled by the soul to carry out its will and use its power, even if the personality wouldn't. 

I think your idea of advancedness is very personal, colored by what you see as highest qualities. My guess is you've got lots of love/wisdom and idealism/devotion in your personal composition. Each of these qualities of course can be expressed imperfectly, with its typical vices. There are multiple paths to greatness. Why should we humble our ego? First we need some decent ego, otherwise there's nothing to be humbled! First we need to grow into the biggest meanest bastard in radius of twenty miles - and then give up the reins of this magnificent Humvee of a personality to the soul's control. A powerful ego and the soul's damn near omniscient guidance is a hugely useful combination for the job of bringing the proverbial God's kingdom on Earth. Too bad it's not my path at all, I'm just equipped to get the idea Smiling

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Plenty of people have funded

Luminion: Plenty of people have funded research in those areas.  It just never went anywhere because it's a bunch of failed hypotheses.

Here's another idea, come up with a technological application of the stuff you claim science has suppressed and market it.  If what you claim is true, you could make millions.

 

http://xkcd.com/808/

 

You could at least go with that Randi prize...

 

 

Teralek wrote:

Ok, let's see...maybe it would be impossible to observe that your consciousness dies when your brain does. How do you prove that your conscience doesn't die? You can't. Not at this moment at least.

I don't know about you, but every time someone I knew became brain dead, I never again saw any signs of consciousness from them.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Zaq wrote:Luminion: Plenty

Zaq wrote:

Luminion: Plenty of people have funded research in those areas.  It just never went anywhere because it's a bunch of failed hypotheses.

Here's another idea, come up with a technological application of the stuff you claim science has suppressed and market it.  If what you claim is true, you could make millions.

http://xkcd.com/808/

You could at least go with that Randi prize...

Invisible hand and free market as arbiters of truth? Pretty much the nearest application of this all is medical and the medical industry is a tough place. Sorry, I don't want FDA on my ass and then to die in jail like Wilhelm Reich. I have suspicions that the system is mostly corrupted. Pharmacologic industry bribes politicians and politicians decide funding for medical research and standards for drugs. This is not how I imagine a free market. Furthermore, I recently stumbled upon an article that describes the peer-review mafia. That might explain lots of things. (by the way, right now my country is "surprised" by a big corruption scandal of my former healthcare minister and deputy, David Rath, so don't expect me to trust the system right now Smiling &nbspEye-wink

As for why the Randi prize is still unclaimed, I'm not really sure. Maybe those who really can do something prize their privacy more than money. And pretty much nobody knows what they're doing, in objective scientific terms. They don't care, they just go by heart and enjoy the results.

I'm grateful for the grey zone that is the alternative medicine industry. I'd love to take you to my favorite EAV alternative medicine practitioner, specially if you take a blood test before that. You wouldn't believe your eyes. Of course I also use and/or know people who use alternative medicine, use astrology or tarot to adapt their schedule. Very often I use the services of a good kinesiologist (a method of dowsing/divination) to make important decisions and find out answers. The point is, many such methods (except prayers and curses) are very much in use in grey economy. 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
For those of you on either

For those of you on either side of the question, a few questions....

1. Could is be possible to transfer your conscience to a supercomputer or another brain?

2. Could a computer have a conscience and be self-aware? If so, how complex must the computer be? If not, how are human brains different that a computer simulating a brain?

3. If scientist could completely separate your brain's left and right hemispheres and keep them alive, would you still have a consciousness? Would it be 0, 1 or 2 consciences?
 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: As for why the

Luminon wrote:
As for why the Randi prize is still unclaimed, I'm not really sure. Maybe those who really can do something prize their privacy more than money. And pretty much nobody knows what they're doing, in objective scientific terms. They don't care, they just go by heart and enjoy the results.

If I had an extraordanary claim which I propose to prove I would more likely go to a University than Randi. Randi and the rest of CSICOP pundits are everything but skeptics. One can see that by weasel words they often use. A true skeptic doesn't have a final opinion before the experience starts. It's obvious to me why the prize was never claimed, and never will be.

There is statistical evidence for ESP but die hard materialistic will never accept it, even when proven true. And I'm talking about highly rated universities... not pundits.

I had first hand contact with an experience I already reported here. To say that Ideomotor effect explains it away is just an absurd claim. It could explain the Ouija board but not this experience in particular. It's just simply impossible to dismiss this experience with known naturalistic laws. There is an unknown here, I am sure.

EXC wrote:

For those of you on either side of the question, a few questions....

1. Could is be possible to transfer your conscience to a supercomputer or another brain?

2. Could a computer have a conscience and be self-aware? If so, how complex must the computer be? If not, how are human brains different that a computer simulating a brain?

3. If scientist could completely separate your brain's left and right hemispheres and keep them alive, would you still have a consciousness? Would it be 0, 1 or 2 consciences?
 

These are good questions and what I am about to say are not closed answers for me. It's what I think at the moment.

First you have to realize that I have a dualistic view of mind/body which will reflect on my answers.

1. yes, but only if this computer has the same kind of "receptors" as a brain. Not any kind of hardware will do. It is my belief that this is not possible with current transistor based computers. It MAY be possible with quantum computing.

2. yes, same conditions as above. it is not so much a question of complexity (although it is necessary), it is more of a "kind of receptor"... it could be a receptor that allows quantum states on a scale never seen anywhere else outside a brain. but this is speculation on my part...

3. Irrelevant. The brain is merely a receptor of conscience. It's impossible to split the brain in half and keep both "alive". If there was a case I would probalby had to reformulate many of my claims.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
  Teralek wrote: If I had

 

 

Teralek wrote:
 If I had an extraordanary claim which I propose to prove I would more likely go to a University than Randi. Randi and the rest of CSICOP pundits are everything but skeptics. One can see that by weasel words they often use. A true skeptic doesn't have a final opinion before the experience starts. It's obvious to me why the prize was never claimed, and never will be.

There is statistical evidence for ESP but die hard materialistic will never accept it, even when proven true. And I'm talking about highly rated universities... not pundits.

You know what? I really can't blame them. In most of cases they deal with New Age bullshit (Sungazing! The new ancient method to gain energy and improve your eyesight! I'm not fuckin' kidding!) or people who peddle it to make money. If they ocassionally stumble upon something that is commonly used and works (for example regression therapy) they don't see any difference. They can not see a difference, because there are no scientific technical terms and numbers. And if there are, it's for the experts, not woo woo warriors. And the experts are unreachable, not in contact with the public.

To me it looks like a system perfectly defended against external interventions. The line of research is set, the new things are allowed to exist (or to be researched) only on nanoscale or cosmic scale. Nobody is concerned with human-sized vital energy fields, that may outlive our death.

And maybe people are afraid to try anything new. It's not just Wilhelm Reich. In my country there is Mr Vasicek who got imprisoned by the local petrol lobby (he wanted to break the monopoly by a cheap petrol from depolymerization process) and there was Dr Karel Foltyn, who had success as with devitalization of tumors, but had to flee the country or get locked up too. The lesson is, never step between rich people and their money, or you're so... in trouble.

 

Teralek wrote:
 These are good questions and what I am about to say are not closed answers for me. It's what I think at the moment.

First you have to realize that I have a dualistic view of mind/body which will reflect on my answers.

1. yes, but only if this computer has the same kind of "receptors" as a brain. Not any kind of hardware will do. It is my belief that this is not possible with current transistor based computers. It MAY be possible with quantum computing.

2. yes, same conditions as above. it is not so much a question of complexity (although it is necessary), it is more of a "kind of receptor"... it could be a receptor that allows quantum states on a scale never seen anywhere else outside a brain. but this is speculation on my part...

3. Irrelevant. The brain is merely a receptor of conscience. It's impossible to split the brain in half and keep both "alive". If there was a case I would probalby had to reformulate many of my claims.

Yes, it should be theoretically possible to record both memories and neuron connections with some technology we don't yet have. The consciousness is not in memories nor neurons. It is very much a process, like a beam of light that shines through the brain. So it is possible to divide the hemispheres and they'll have their own opinions each. But taking them out of body to be still conscious, I doubt so. 

Of course, a brain can be removed and kept biologically alive, in a healthy state. There are already technologies for that, based on the properties of polarized and/or monochromatic light that stimulates cellular activity. (some simplier devices are commercially available) The brain is and remains a functional computer, but the user is not sitting at the keyboard anymore.

 

What a nice coincidence. I just finished a 2 hour meditation and went to fix myself a dinner. During that I turned on the TV and on the main national channel there was a document about three people who underwent OOBE and/or NDE. After meditation I always have lots of energy... If the skeptic in you asks what kind of energy, let's say it's ATF energy. (all ten fingers)

One man, a businessman got cancer and underwent treatment. Chemo decreased his hemoglobin to 80 bpi...or somethings and he was very weak for a long time. He sat on a chair and leaned forward. And then he wondered why the hell is his body lying on the floor, when he is still sitting. The experience lasted for 3 weeks, he said something like that. And there was always something that was holding his incorporeal head by the top, some kind of conical balloon or something that comforted him and commented the events around, what is wrong and what is right. Now he has a deep belief and awareness (he said he'd have to write a very thick book) of an unseen higher orderly system and that there is something higher that sent him here for a purpose and that guides him. (he basically described the Theosophic model)

Another man had an accident when he was just 17 years old. He was a normal guy, his main interests were girls. Once in August he took a jump in water straight ahead, but his foot slipped. He turned over too much and his head hit the water in such an angle that it twisted too far back and shattered his 4th, 5th and 6th vertebra. Then he sunk below the water. He turned back to his left and saw his body floating down. He felt nothing about the body, realizing that it was only a place where he lived. And he went upwards into a tunnel. The tunnel brought him into a place where he had never been before, yet he instantly felt at home. It was filled with yellow-pink light. There he met a being that he recognized as Jesus Christ who told him to go back, that it's not yet his time. This young guy completely changed his values and became interested in God...

As a third case there was a lady, who worked very hard in her life and started to have problems with her gall bladder and everything around. And doctors instead of fixing her life had just cut out the organs that failed from the strain and called that a solution. She suffered pain for many years and had to receive monthly blood transfusions. During one of checkups she collapsed and went into coma. She went into a tunnel of white light, there was nobody but the light and the tunnel got more and more infinitely long and twisting, but still narrowing as it gradually embraced her. She felt an immense bliss and heard a beautiful soft music... But she was still aware of her surroundings, her husband walking with canes behind the door at the hallway, for a couple of weeks. And this knowledge that he was waiting prevented her from taking one step further in the tunnel, one that she believed would be final. Now they are a happy couple.

There was a doctor too, but all the medical hypotheses he mentioned were lack of oxygen or changes in brain PH. Which is completely inadequate. The consciousness during NDE seems working in the same quality or better, there is no pain, there is bliss and a deep awareness of things we shouldn't even be aware, spontaneous knowledge that the body is just a vessel that we inhabit for some time and then discard it. I think the whole body and brain is in too much trouble than to pay attention to New Age beliefs (which the person didn't even have) and to imagine a classical book case visions of OOBE. More than that, those who had this mystical experience in NDE say, that they wanted to tell people about it, but they couldn't. It was impossible to express in words. I'd say nothing like this exists in our daily reality. 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: You know

Luminon wrote:
You know what? I really can't blame them. In most of cases they deal with New Age bullshit (Sungazing! The new ancient method to gain energy and improve your eyesight! I'm not fuckin' kidding!) or people who peddle it to make money. If they ocassionally stumble upon something that is commonly used and works (for example regression therapy) they don't see any difference. They can not see a difference, because there are no scientific technical terms and numbers. And if there are, it's for the experts, not woo woo warriors. And the experts are unreachable, not in contact with the public.

To me it looks like a system perfectly defended against external interventions. The line of research is set, the new things are allowed to exist (or to be researched) only on nanoscale or cosmic scale. Nobody is concerned with human-sized vital energy fields, that may outlive our death.

And maybe people are afraid to try anything new. It's not just Wilhelm Reich. In my country there is Mr Vasicek who got imprisoned by the local petrol lobby (he wanted to break the monopoly by a cheap petrol from depolymerization process) and there was Dr Karel Foltyn, who had success as with devitalization of tumors, but had to flee the country or get locked up too. The lesson is, never step between rich people and their money, or you're so... in trouble.

You got a point there...

 

Luminon wrote:
Yes, it should be theoretically possible to record both memories and neuron connections with some technology we don't yet have. The consciousness is not in memories nor neurons. It is very much a process, like a beam of light that shines through the brain. So it is possible to divide the hemispheres and they'll have their own opinions each. But taking them out of body to be still conscious, I doubt so. 

Of course, a brain can be removed and kept biologically alive, in a healthy state. There are already technologies for that, based on the properties of polarized and/or monochromatic light that stimulates cellular activity. (some simplier devices are commercially available) The brain is and remains a functional computer, but the user is not sitting at the keyboard anymore.

 Ok... I agree that conscience is more than the sum of the neurons and memories. But you were not clear enough as to say if you think is possible to transfer the same someone's "beam of light that shines through the brain" into an artificial created "complexity"

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Zaq wrote:I don't know about

Zaq wrote:

I don't know about you, but every time someone I knew became brain dead, I never again saw any signs of consciousness from them.

I have. Except I didn't know them.

www.ini.uzh.ch/~kiper/Van_Lommel.pdf

http://youtu.be/CSuUk9lNM-U

 

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote: 1. yes, but

Teralek wrote:

1. yes, but only if this computer has the same kind of "receptors" as a brain. Not any kind of hardware will do. It is my belief that this is not possible with current transistor based computers. It MAY be possible with quantum computing.

So you think that only certain types of hardware that gives rise to consciousness? That only an organic neural based processor can produce conscience? Why?

A digital computer can simulate the behavior of neural networks. So why should organic neurons produce consciousness but not silicon transistors? It's all just ones and zeros.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network_software

Teralek wrote:

2. yes, same conditions as above. it is not so much a question of complexity (although it is necessary), it is more of a "kind of receptor"... it could be a receptor that allows quantum states on a scale never seen anywhere else outside a brain. but this is speculation on my part...

But a computer could emulate this behavior, right? Or is there something 'magical' going on at the quantum level that can not be simulated on a computer? Isn't the same kind of thing going on with silicon transistors as organic neurons, turning on and off?

Teralek wrote:

3. Irrelevant. The brain is merely a receptor of conscience. It's impossible to split the brain in half and keep both "alive". If there was a case I would probalby had to reformulate many of my claims.

I think you should read up on the subject. It offers a lot of insight into consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_brain_theory

Even under normal circumstances, there is relatively little information flow between the two hemispheres. So the brain is naturally like two consciousness. When the connections are even more severed it seems even more like two consciousnesses.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:So you think that

EXC wrote:

So you think that only certain types of hardware that gives rise to consciousness? That only an organic neural based processor can produce conscience? Why?

A digital computer can simulate the behavior of neural networks. So why should organic neurons produce consciousness but not silicon transistors? It's all just ones and zeros.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network_software

I didn't say that ONLY organic neural processes can give rise to conscience. I say certain systems cannot, others may. Certain physical eyes can see only black and white others can see colour. I say it's not a case of information contained in a specific mathematical formula of 1 and 0.  Human conscience is not defined by 1 and 0. Quantum computing has a radical new way of working problems which jumps a step ahead from 1 and 0, and I said it may give rise to conscience. Besides QM computing will probably allow indeterministic states which are impossible in silicon based computing. 

Me doing a neural network simulation on a computer is just like me doing a simulation on a computer of the electromagnetic spectrum of blue light. I'm representing it mathematically but I'm not creating it

I'm not actually creating conscient awareness.

The biggest evidence towards this is that computer power has already far exceeded the human brain both in processing power and memory capacity. BUT We are still unable and clueless as how to create an aware conscience.
 

EXC wrote:

But a computer could emulate this behavior, right? Or is there something 'magical' going on at the quantum level that can not be simulated on a computer? Isn't the same kind of thing going on with silicon transistors as organic neurons, turning on and off?

A artificial created "complexity" with the correct structure (that we may call a computer) can give rise to conscience which is indistinguishable from you or me. It is not something magical happening, it is something that is for now unknown. I said quantum computing MAY create one, I'm not sure about that. QM computing is still in it's infancy. But if I'm correct we may still see if my theory is correct in our life time.

EXC wrote:

I think you should read up on the subject. It offers a lot of insight into consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_brain_theory

Even under normal circumstances, there is relatively little information flow between the two hemispheres. So the brain is naturally like two consciousness. When the connections are even more severed it seems even more like two consciousnesses.

There is more into the brain

"A patient with a split brain, when shown an image in his or her left visual field (the left half of what both eyes take in, see optic tract), will be unable to vocally name what he or she has seen."

Perfectly consistent with my dualistic theory. If the mind interacts with the brain thus allowing physical effects then we would expect this. It's not 2 different people.

The case studies on the website you showed me, clearly indicate 1 unique person, not 2 different people living each on a different part of the brain.

Moreover the brain has more structures which do not use the Corpus callosum. I don't know which structures of the brain are directly related with the mind/brain relationship.

We also know that different parts of the brain can replace the function of damaged parts to some extent.

If you break your TV and you get a split image - National geografic on one side and the sci fi channel on the other it's not 2 TVs... it's just a broken TV.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline

iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3473
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:1. Could is be

EXC wrote:

1. Could is be possible to transfer your conscience to a supercomputer or another brain?

it seems arthur c. clarke at least might have deemed it possible.  this is the explanation given in 2061: Odyssey Three of how bowman, HAL, and floyd have been able to survive in disembodied states inside the great wall on europa.  in fact, floyd's consciousness is copied (without his knowledge) into the supercomputer while he himself is still alive physically, so that as long as the physical floyd lives, there are basically two floyds.

these "uploaded" consciousnesses continue to be aware and develop and learn as they would in their original forms.  essentially there is no disconnect.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen