# Humanities & Anthropology > Philosophy >  Life After Death

## Tsuyoiko

OK, this is a cliched topic, but there doesn't seem to be a thread about it, and I know people have strong feelings. So what do you think happens after we 'shuffle off this mortal coil'?

I think we survive only in the work we leave behind, and in the memories of those who knew us.

----------


## Void

thus conscience does make cowards of us all  :Laughing: 

i am not sure still, some of my experience yet can`t be explained by simple coincidence

oops, there was another thread %))) sorry, Tsuyoiko, but i wouldn`t vote anyway  :Blush:

----------


## Maciamo

I suppose that "I believe in death after life" means that we believe that there is 'nothing' after life ? That's more or less my view, except that I believe in the eternity of matter which we are made of, and as I don't believe in the soul, that means that I believe in the eternity of the matter and energy that compose us.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> I suppose that "I believe in death after life" means that we believe that there is 'nothing' after life ?


Yep. I just saw it referred to that way somewhere, and I thought it was quite cute. I agree with your comment about matter and energy.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

I believe in spirits, mediums, I believe in them completely. But as far as an "After Life" goes I don't believe or not believe in it. I do not find the idea of it comforting at all but I will not deny or accept it. I hope there is nothing after this Life but frankly I can never know for sure 'til I die so there's no point believing it or not.

----------


## Kama

Ifind  myself an animist who believes in reincarnation.  :Smiling:  Reincarnating into humans after death.

----------


## Kinsao

I believe in some kind of existence of the soul after death, but I very much doubt it is in any way that we could comprehend in this life. 




> I believe in the eternity of matter which we are made of, and as I don't believe in the soul, that means that I believe in the eternity of the matter and energy that compose us.


Broadly I agree with Maciamo, with the difference that I believe in the soul. I'm not sure how to explain, but I think it is part of the energy that composes us.  :Confused:

----------


## Pararousia

I believe in eternal life and I can't wait to get there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## UFSI

I can come back as a pampered cat.

----------


## Revenant

In some ways, I don't know that it can be reasoned, but for the sake of sanity, I believe in reincarnation. I would like to believe that those born under horrid circumstances would have a better life sometime later. I would also like to believe that good people wouldn't go to hell, or judgement day, and lastly I would like to believe that those who never came near the truth might have the chance to do so in a later life.

----------


## Pachipro

There was an interesting thread on this that Smoke started back in April on "What Happens After We Die?. I posted my answer here.

After experiencing actually leaving my physical body, which I detailed in the link above, I firmly believe in a "life" after the death of the physical body and research done for the past 30 odd years seems to back it up. 

I firmly believe that we all have a soul that survives to be reborn again or to go on to higher things. As Maciamo said we are matter. And I believe that the soul is pure energy/matter. And from what I've researched, energy and matter cannot be destroyed, it only takes another form. Much the same way water, when boiled turns to steam. Or a leaf when burned turns to ashes. The matter has only taken another form, but it still survives. Therefore, I believe that we continue to survive when we depart this physical plane.

Tsuyoiko, you ar a fan of Stargate SG1 as I am. Remember what happened to your favorite character, Dr. Daniel Jackson? He ascended. I believe that eventually that is the destiny of us all - to ascend to a higher life form when we are finished with "school house earth". There is a lot more reality to science-"fiction" than most people would believe.

----------


## Mars Man

As usual these days, I don't have the time to really sit down and make a detailed post, but this thread did catch my eye, and I felt the urge to jump on board. 

Again, I really, way deep down inside, wish these polls could be more comprehensive in scope, but know that that's probably impossible. I voted for the last on the list, wishing there would have been something about the conscious mind; the being itself. As brought out by Maciamo, it most always seems that this 'life after death' subject is really more of a 'conscious, present-self after physical (death (as percieved by the physical brain))' matter. 

I really don't see how we can deny that the mind, the being, and the consciousness itself, is the materiality of the brain alone. All experience has to be by the brain--I cannot see any way around that. We know that the person can change into a very different person with brain damage and change. It is quite clear that the brain of one with autism is exactly that brain, that person, that consciousness. 

I would hope to discuss this matter fully too. . . and I just cannot wait to have the time to do so. Many do have strong beliefs, as Tsuyoiko said, but are they only beliefs? To what degree can the various understandings be shown to be plausible? I'll come back again; please forgive me.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

Thanks Mars Man. As you say, it is so difficult to think of all the possible options to include in a poll. I suppose the two I missed would be "I believe in a soul that is separate from the body" and "I believe that human consciousness survives death".

There are two books that convinced me that brain function entirely explains human consciousness: _The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat_ by Oliver Sacks and _The Undiscovered Mind_ by John Horgan. Has anyone read those, and still believe in a soul separate from the body?

----------


## UFSI

where is our "soul" before our birth? Does it exist, or is the soul "born" into existance when we are conceived? Does the brain have to develop for a "soul" to exist? Maybe our souls sit on a shelf or in a box till we have a body to put it in? Do bugs, fish, other mammals, germs, etc. have a soul? Lots of "soulful" thinking can go into this topic!

 :Doubt:

----------


## Pachipro

> All experience has to be by the brain--I cannot see any way around that. We know that the person can change into a very different person with brain damage and change. It is quite clear that the brain of one with autism is exactly that brain, that person, that consciousness.





> There are two books that convinced me that brain function entirely explains human consciousness: The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat by Oliver Sacks and The Undiscovered Mind by John Horgan. Has anyone read those, and still believe in a soul separate from the body?


I have not read those books nor do I desire to as I have a completely different view based on real life experience.

To me, the brain is just a conduit, a "resting place" so to speak, the most complex organ of the physical body, in order that the soul/conciousness can experience the five senses in this physical world of ours. Now if something were to happen to the brain that would render me incapable of acting my "normal" self that the people around me have come to know me as, it would not mean that I am a different person. I would still be the same person but with no control over the damage to to my brain that rendered me a "different" person. That would be a most terrifying experience.

Let me try and put it a different way. When I was younger I had the misfortune of being diagnosed with _grand mal_ seizure disorder. In other words epilepsy. The worst kind. This was caused by some blunt trauma to the brain when I was young and was clearly seen on x-rays and scans by the neurologists. This damaged part of the brain would sometimes "misfire" and I would have seizures. At its worst I would have a seizure 2 or 3 times a month.

I guess I was fortunate in that I would know when a seizure was coming on in that I would start to hallucinate and begin to feel weird and not my "normal" self. As a youngster of 12 this really startled me. I had absolutely no control over it as much as I tried. I would begin to feel funny, see things that really weren't there in the physical world, talk incoherently and then I would black out. Sometimes with violent shaking and spasms and sometimes not. 

I once hallucinated, or transported myself to an outdoor scene that was like 200 years ago! I was sitting outside at a big table with all kinds of food on it, the sky was clear with a few clouds, there was a slight breeze that I felt on my face and I could also feel the warmth of the sun! I could smell the food on the table and hear all sounds around me. The people were speaking in a language that I thought was English, but could not quite comprehend. What really freaked me out was that everyone was dressed in Pilgrim clothes of the early English settlers to America! I can recall that scene to this day in it's most minute details as, to me, I was actually there and did experience it. I know what a dream is and what it feels like. This was NO dream. That I am certain of.

When I would come to a few hours later after blacking out I would have complete amnesia and would not know where I was or even recognize who my parents were! Inside my soul/conciousness I would know who I was. I was still the same person I always was! It just terrified the hell out of me that I could not, for the life of me, recall who these people standing around me were or where I was or what had happened to me. Luckily, gradually but surely, my memories returned within an hour or so. But what a freaky feeling to be able to know you were still you but could not recall anything!

I once opened my eyes from one of these seizures and was completely paralyzed. I mean I couldn' move a muscle. Talk about a terrifying experience! People were trying to talk to me and I was trying to answer but my brain wouldn't respond. I was still the same person I always was with the same thoughts and all, but I had no control as my brain had failed to relay my thoughts to my limbs and vocal chords. Within a 10 minutes or so my brain was able to function and I could move and talk as usual.

The shame of it is is that the medical profession just blew off these hallucinations and paralysis as just my "imagination". But, they are not me and they DID NOT experience what I experienced! They did not know that my conciousness/soul never changed one iota. It was just my brain that changed. What wonders could be discovered if people like doctors and scientists didn't have closed minds?

Now if my brain were severely and permanently damaged and I started acting like a different person or became violent I believe that it would not mean that I had changed as I was still "me", the conciousness/soul residing in the brain. It would mean that my brain had failed to function properly and I had lost all control of the real me operating inside this body and trying to partake normally in the physical world.

Does this explain violent behavior in people? I think not as I believe that some people are pure evil. But it might explain some schizophrenic behavior in people or people with autuism and other illnesses whose brains have failed to function properly for one reason or another. Inside they are still the same person they always were and always will be.

Look at people like Mohammed Ali or Michael J. Fox who have Parkinsons disease. They have absolutely lost all control over the muscles of their body. Does this make them a different person? I think not as I know from first-hand experience what it feels like to lose control over one's muscles, vocal chords, and memories. Inside we are still the same person we always were and always will be. It's just that our physical brain, that organ that alllows us to function normally, has failed in one way or another and it is a most terrifying experience to feel normal on the inside with absolutely no control of a failed brain.

Therefore, I cannot comprehend that the brain and soul/conciousness are one and the same. That upon death "we" cease to be. Based on my experiences with a flawed brain, it just doesn't make sense. To me they will always be seperate and, upon death, the soul/conciousness departs the physical body and the physical world for a life that, here in the physical world, we are forbidden to recall.

Luckily I have not had a seizure in 25 years or so. The doctors say I may have outgrown it, but they always say it may return one day as the "spot" on the brain is still there. I pray not. However, being much older and wiser, I may look forward to those hallucinations again just to see what the brain is capable of and seeing if I can "control" the hallucinations as it is said that we humans only utilize 5-7% of our actual brain capacity.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

Hi Pachipro  :Wavey:  I'm glad to hear you're not having the seizures anymore, and I really hope they never come back.

Your point of view is interesting, and so different from mine - opposite really! From my own experience I feel that we don't stay the same from day to day, let alone over the course of many years. I am a very different person than I was 10 years ago, and I believe that is because of the way my experiences have changed my brain. In a very small way I am a different person than I was even just this morning, because of the things I have learnt over the course of today - experiences and knowledge that I believe exist as neural connections in my brain.

I don't think reducing human experience to brain function makes it any less valuable or amazing, any more than knowing that the sun is a ball of gas makes it less awe-inspiring. More so for me in fact. I have a sense of wonder that everything I have learnt and everything I am is stored in a smallish lump of muscle. That seems cool - if a bit scary - to me.

----------


## Kama

Pachipro, your post was really interesting to read. For over 20 years (it started when I was 2 years old) I am an epileptic. I took drugs for really long time, so of course what I have experienced could all be "fake" because I don't have any memories from before the treatment, but for me everything was real. I had different types of epilepsy during my life, it evolved till now, but it never was grand mal.

I think that having epylepsy is a terrifying experience. Now, I know when the seizure will come, but I can't control it. When the seizure is coming, I feel like I had two parts of me: one is that flawed which can't control the body (the mind) and another, which looks from aside. This is strange: you are you and at the same time you are unable to be you - to control yourself. I feel my experiences are a bit similar to these of Pachipro.

I see sometiomes I have changed. But all the changes are quite on the surface: I started wearing non-black clothes, I started eating pizza etc. It's never something deep. Of course, during life I had many experiences that made me see something new, and changed me, at last I thought they changed me. But when I go back in time, I see that I haven't changed.

For me it's the opposite of body/mind and soul. Soul is something that exist outside the materia, and body/mind are material. Soul will advance itself during its "lifespan" entering various bodies. I remember past experience from other lives...and other souls... Of course,somebody can say it's only because of epilepsy I saw/felt these, but for me that's true. That is my reality.

I hope I didn't bore anybody to death. Also, sorryfor the chaoticness ofmy thoughts.

----------


## Void

> From my own experience I feel that we don't stay the same from day to day, let alone over the course of many years. I am a very different person than I was 10 years ago, and I believe that is because of the way my experiences have changed my brain. In a very small way I am a different person than I was even just this morning, because of the things I have learnt over the course of today - experiences and knowledge that I believe exist as neural connections in my brain.


Certainly, and something you forgot as well, maybe, just smth little and
insignificant... Besides, with years some connections get blocked or even 
destroyed, you can see your memory getting worse as well as the ability to 
concentrate. And which is more, the difference between me of 10 years ago and today is also due to the social roles i play ("the masks we wear")

Many schizophrenics see "the doors" normal people never notice, that`s why
some of schizs make geniune (without mock) discoveries (especially at debute), but with years desease destroys their personality and they lose the ability to socialize. What is behind their voices and strange behavior we can only guess. Though, tomorrow i am visiting my friend, she is psychiatrist, so i`ll ask some questions  :Sou ka:

----------


## kirei_na_me

I voted for "death after life". I believe we live on through memories, and I think that's great. My family still talks about the stories of great-great-great(etc.) ancestors. There's so much written history in my family, my mom's side in particular, that those people will never die. I would be more than satisfied if my upcoming family members remember me through those same types of stories. Having a great-great granddaughter bake one of my cakes or a great-great grandson telling how his great-great grandparents met is more than enough for me.

----------


## Pachipro

> From my own experience I feel that we don't stay the same from day to day, let alone over the course of many years. I am a very different person than I was 10 years ago, and I believe that is because of the way my experiences have changed my brain.


You have an interesting point here that I started to reply to concerning maturity, but I think I went off on a tangent and got really off subject and decided to put it off till tomorrow.

We all are much different than we were 10 or 20 or 30 years ago, but I feel it has more to do with maturing in todays society than a matter of brain function. I hope I can clarify myself tomorrow. If not I'll make a new thread.




> For over 20 years (it started when I was 2 years old) I am an epileptic. I took drugs for really long time, so of course what I have experienced could all be "fake" because I don't have any memories from before the treatment, but for me everything was real. I had different types of epilepsy during my life, it evolved till now, but it never was grand mal.


Thanks for sharing your experience Kama. At least I am not the only one here to have experienced this. The drugs I used to take were phenobarbitol and dilantin and they never seemed to help stop the seizures. I'm grateful that the seizures stopped on their own or maybe I had something to do with it as when I was turned down for a drivers licensesome 32 years ago I got so mad that I went back to my room, took my medicine and threw it in the trash can while yelling, "I DON'T HAVE EPILEPSY! From that day forward I have never had another seizure! Unbelievable, but true.




> For me it's the opposite of body/mind and soul. Soul is something that exist outside the materia, and body/mind are material. Soul will advance itself during its "lifespan" entering various bodies. I remember past experience from other lives...and other souls... Of course,somebody can say it's only because of epilepsy I saw/felt these, but for me that's true. That is my reality.


I feel and believe exactly what you do. For me that experience of being in a place some 200 years ago when I had a seizure was real and actually occured. It's beyond logical explaination, but I was there and it was as real as I feel typing this reply.




> Many schizophrenics see "the doors" normal people never notice, that`s why
> some of schizs make geniune (without mock) discoveries (especially at debute), but with years desease destroys their personality and they lose the ability to socialize. What is behind their voices and strange behavior we can only guess. Though, tomorrow i am visiting my friend, she is psychiatrist, so i`ll ask some questions


Please do. It is said that there is a very fine line between a genius and a crazy or retarded person. In my opinion I feel that schizs or people with autuism are not mentally deranged, but that they have access to a part of the higher function of the brain that normal people do not. Since this is considered "abnormal" by the medical profession they are labled mentally unstable or retarded and looked at with a raised eyebrow. It's not fair and should be researched further.

Think about a person who is coming down with alzheimers's disease. Their brain is literally falling apart and ceasing to function. I wonder what they feel on the inside. Inside, do they feel they are still the same person as I did, but cannot react to it or recall memories? I think maybe so. 

Look at poor Terry Shiavo (sp), the woman they starved to death in Florida because they said she was brain dead. I believe that she knew exactly what what was happening to her, but because of her failed brain, she was unable to let her feelings be known. Inside she was still alive and very aware. It's a disgrace what they did to her and it must've been very painful and terrifying to her to be literally starved and dehydrated to death. If they had just given her a shot to stop her heart as they do with terminal animals, it would've been more humane. But no. They tortured the poor woman and they should all be ashamed of themselves as I'm sure she "knew" exactly what was happening to her, but was helpless. Unfortunately, we are still in the Dark Ages when it comes to the medical profession.

----------


## Mars Man

That was a very interesting, and enlightening story there Pachipro san and, in no lesser degree, Kama san. I greatly appreciate your candor, in relating your personal experiences, and would hope for the same in looking over all the knowledge out there, that one should, as empirically shown to be the better of values, study in critical methodology. 

I'm glad to know that you have not had any more seizures, Pachipro, and hope that your brain has short-circuited that routing. I would like to encourage you to consider whether you would be willing to investigate the concepts of brain/mind/consciousness further. Or, as you seemed to have insinuated, have you dogmatically closed the book on any further learning on that matter through case histories, empirical knowledge, inquiry into the paranormal, and so on? 

The brother of a friend of mine also had some form of epilepsy which, and I cannot remember the finer details, he eventually had been able to harness under full control. When some medics who were concerned and sceptical of his claim to be able to control the seizures, asked for a demonstration of such--for the purpose of getting some type of 'medical release' (if you will)--he turned on a seizure in their presence, and after a short period of time, turned it off--then, if my memory serves me well, repeated the procedure to amply prove his claim. He was given that 'release'. The point being, if it can be a matter of 'free will' in one person, then why not all? And, if this were not the brain itself doing the controling of itself, then why could not all those aflicted control it?


I would offer some fundamental questions, for starters, which would have to have answers of some sort, as follows: ( I myself am not totally closed to whatever degree of paranormal, yet would not say that paranormal-attributed effects, events, and such, are non-physical in nature, but, rather, are just not known yet; cannot be measured, as such, yet.) 

Why would there have to be anything related to the physical brain at all, to have to have epileptic seizures?

Why would there be 'black outs' if consciousness were a non-physical, beyond the matter of the bodily build?

How can it be that people like "M.H." (_The Human Brain_ Susan Greenfield ) who had had such severe epileptic seizures that it was impossible for him to live an anywhere near normal life, only be cured by having a faulty section of brain removed? (In H.M.'s case, part of the temporal lobe--although the surgery has been said to have never been repeated due to the very bad side effects, almost total loss of working memory, along the loss of up to some 2 years before surgery.)

How could account for cases such as Phineas Gage, who had severe prefrontal cortexal damage, and became a _very_ different person from before or stoke victims who can no longer see moving objects, including even coffee pouring from the coffee pot?

I would hope that there would be room for studying further in this field too. But, more than anything else, am really glad to know that you have very much overcome the seizures, and maybe the whole problem--and that's the truth !!  :Relieved:

----------


## Sensuikan San

Curious ....

I voted for "death after life" ... but also admitted that "I believe in ghosts" ....!:rolleyes: 

There _has_ to be an incongruity there, doesn't there!

I would tend to explain it by stating that I do not believe that a "ghost" is necessarily a "living" :) entity - but perhaps a lingering impression collected and retained by a location or an individual - a theory that has been put forward many times.

Suffice to say - I have met many folks, including blood relatives, who have had rather alarming experiences with what could be considered "ghosts" ... including one experience that I actually _shared_ with the individual concerned.

W

----------


## Kama

> You have an interesting point here that I started to reply to concerning maturity, but I think I went off on a tangent and got really off subject and decided to put it off till tomorrow.
> 
> We all are much different than we were 10 or 20 or 30 years ago, but I feel it has more to do with maturing in todays society than a matter of brain function. I hope I can clarify myself tomorrow. If not I'll make a new thread.


Are we really so different that in past? I think that there is core that doesn't change. Of course, I like other kind of music that I have learned 10 years ago (that was dance, now I listen to rock/metal, so quite a change). We learn new things, but... I always knew that I like both boys & girls, later on I had a knowledge of what is heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual, and I said "I'm bi" but that haven't changed me at all... I was sill the same.

My question now is: do we really change that much? ?SOMETHING has to be the same, people don't change RADICALLY. Even if their behaviour changes radically (for example: he was such a calm child...) I don't believe it means that all his point of views, all rules, etc. changes too.In fact I think that the rules/views in some way were born with us. I think that partly our views are heritage from other lives (and it's a sign of soul's progress)





> Thanks for sharing your experience Kama. At least I am not the only one here to have experienced this. The drugs I used to take were phenobarbitol and dilantin and they never seemed to help stop the seizures. I'm grateful that the seizures stopped on their own or maybe I had something to do with it as when I was turned down for a drivers licensesome 32 years ago I got so mad that I went back to my room, took my medicine and threw it in the trash can while yelling, "I DON'T HAVE EPILEPSY! From that day forward I have never had another seizure! Unbelievable, but true.


Thanks for sharing your experience. Without you, I wouldn't have courage to write this. *bravo for you* I had taken amizepin and t*** I forgot the name for other medicine. But it really scared me when I have read that after taking amizepin you can't drive for 24h. Giving a little child such medicines O.o Nevermind.

----------


## Kama

> Curious ....
> 
> I voted for "death after life" ... but also admitted that "I believe in ghosts" ....!:rolleyes: 
> 
> There _has_ to be an incongruity there, doesn't there!
> 
> I would tend to explain it by stating that I do not believe that a "ghost" is necessarily a "living" :) entity - but perhaps a lingering impression collected and retained by a location or an individual - a theory that has been put forward many times.
> 
> Suffice to say - I have met many folks, including blood relatives, who have had rather alarming experiences with what could be considered "ghosts" ... including one experience that I actually _shared_ with the individual concerned.
> ...



For me, ghosts are "living" entities, but I think that memories/feelings if strong enough will stay in the things/places. Also, I think that future events can mark the things/places. I believe some things are bound to happen. I mean for example "time of death". You probably have heard some things like "it's a miracle he survived. It looks like it wasn't time for him."

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> I do not believe that a "ghost" is necessarily a "living" :) entity - but perhaps a lingering impression collected and retained by a location or an individual - a theory that has been put forward many times.


I too am open to that possibility. I have never seen anything like that myself, and I haven't heard any reliable testimony from anyone I know, but it doesn't seem scientifically impossible to me. I have heard a theory that crystalline particles in rock or mortar could act like a recording device. I haven't seen anything to prove that wrong - but then again I haven't seen any convincing evidence in favour either. Suffice it to say I am open-minded about it.


> My question now is: do we really change that much? ?SOMETHING has to be the same, people don't change RADICALLY. Even if their behaviour changes radically (for example: he was such a calm child...) I don't believe it means that all his point of views, all rules, etc. changes too.In fact I think that the rules/views in some way were born with us. I think that partly our views are heritage from other lives (and it's a sign of soul's progress)


I agree that there is always a core (good word) that doesn't change. But I think that is because we are all to some extent constrained by our genes and by the anatomy of our brain at birth.

----------


## Pachipro

> I would like to encourage you to consider whether you would be willing to investigate the concepts of brain/mind/consciousness further. Or, as you seemed to have insinuated, have you dogmatically closed the book on any further learning on that matter through case histories, empirical knowledge, inquiry into the paranormal, and so on?


Sorry if I gave that impression as I have not closed the book on the matter mentioned. Quite the opposite. It's just that it is too incomprehensible for me to believe that the brain/soul is one entity and that upon death "we" cease to exist. I believe that they are seperate based on my own experiences. If I had not had those experiences I may just believe as you and a few others do, that upon death it is "lights out", end of story, so to speak. To me, death is just a beginning where we exit the physical plane and re-enter the spiritual plane to review our previous life, what we have learned and what we still need to learn in order to spiritually progress further.

I am very open to invesigating the concepts of brain/mind/conciousness further and have done so for the past 25 years. I have read numerous books on the paranormal and it is one of my favorite subjects. Some of my favorite authors are MD's on this subject. Among them, Dr. Raymond Moody, PHD (Life After Life website). One new development in his research seems to counter the theory that Near Death Experiences (NDEs) are the result of a dying brain. He said there are increasing numbers of reports of relatives of dying persons having an "empathetic death experience," where they observe the newly deceased in spirit form, in interactions that are similar to classic NDE accounts. 

For instance, he described a case where a doctor's mother went into cardiac arrest and as she was trying to resuscitate her, the doctor left her body and observed the two of them. She then witnessed her mother's spirit receding into an "aperture of light" that spiraled down like a closing camera lens. 

Another author is Psychotherapist Brian L. Weiss, MD  who uses "past-life" therapy/regression to treat his patients. Dr. Weiss is a firm believer, as I am, in reincarnation and past lives. Also, he bases his writings on the experiences of hundreds of patients.

Both have researched and written numerous books on this very same subject of the brain and soul being seperate. Their books were wrtten based on their own actual case histories with their own patients. Also, both were very skeptical when they first started hearing from patients about past lives, Out of Body Experiences, NDE's and such.

Therefore I am very open to the subject and these two MD's, among a few others, have further cemented my belief that the brain/soul are seperate and that "we" continue to exist after physical death. I mean how can you explain the fact that thousands of people, from all walks of life, from all races and countries, are having these experiences. It's not just me. Check out their brief websites and let me know what you think. 

Can one really believe that we cease to live/exist after the death of the physical body when research by MD's with credentials prove otherwise? Or are all these people just imagining the same experiences?

----------


## Pachipro

> Why would there have to be anything related to the physical brain at all, to have to have epileptic seizures?





> Why would there be 'black outs' if consciousness were a non-physical, beyond the matter of the bodily build?


Because the brain has become damaged or is misfiring, so to speak. The damaged brain causes epileptic seizures. The brain is a complex physical object while the conciousness/soul is not. The soul just resides in the brain and cannot escape or leave until the death of the physical body. That is the deal we made before coming into the physical. Some knew they would be mentally handicapped and these souls, because of their handicap, progress faster it is said.

Let's see if I can make an analogy. You are given a car to drive. You agree beforehand that once inside that car you cannot ever leave that car until the car dies and ceases to operate. You are completely aware of yourself inside the car, but you have no control over it's mechanical operation as you are two seperate entities. You feed it (gas) and give it physical check ups (maintenance). If something is severely wrong with it maybe you can replace a part here and there (transplanting). Sure you can take it to a "doctor" (mechanic) when things seem to go wrong and maybe they can fix the problem and maybe they can't. For the most part it operates smoothly and your maturity and learning from others determines how you will operate the vehicle.

Maybe you become wild and drive it fast and recklessly, threatening other cars around you and your own car. You "feed" it cheap gas and maybe fail to maintain it properly. Then again you may decide to operate it maturely and take care of it. Everyone cares for their "vehicle" differently.

Then one day, through no fault of your own, the engine starts to act weird and the "doctors" (mechanics), try as they may, can't seem to fix the problem. You have no control over the vehicle and it begins to operate outside the norm for vehicles. Try as you may the vehicle seems to have taken on a life of its own. For some unknown reason it continues to misfire and drives erratically. You are told that maybe you should keep the car off the road as you may harm others with your slow speed and abnormal driving. They may cut a part out of it, but it is not the same and may be worse than before but, "Hey, it is still running," they tell you. But you know it is not the same vehicle it once was.

After a while maybe it blows a tire and goes out of control and crashes or it just ceases to operate from old age or a major failure and it is declared "dead". You are still alive. You just get out of the car, review what went wrong with the vehicle with "experts" (spiritual higher-ups), what you could've done better to maintain it or prevented the crash and you are then given a new vehicle to operate and live in. BUT, you have no memory of your previous vehicle and how you operated it. It may be in a different country and may very well be a "foreign" vehicle. You just have a "gut feeling" on how you should operate this vehicle. Hopefully, in this vehicle, maybe you learned from your past mistakes in your previous vehicle and will operate it in a defferent manner.

To me, it's the same with life. Our bodies are our vehicle and we both are seperate entities. The analogy may be simple minded and maybe off track, but I hope I conveyed my point of view. It sure gives a new meaning to the phrase, "He blew a gasket!"

----------


## Pachipro

> From my own experience I feel that we don't stay the same from day to day, let alone over the course of many years. I am a very different person than I was 10 years ago, and I believe that is because of the way my experiences have changed my brain. In a very small way I am a different person than I was even just this morning, because of the things I have learnt over the course of today - experiences and knowledge that I believe exist as neural connections in my brain.





> Are we really so different that in past? I think that there is core that doesn't change.


Here we have two different points of view. I think Kama is quite correct here and that is what I was trying to convey yesterday when I just gave up thinking I was going off on a tangent. And so is Tsuyoiko correct in her point of view in that we are different from what were 20 years ago or even 20 minutes ago.

IMO both are true and I do not feel it it is related to to neural connections in the brain. I think it is more related to how we are supposed to act in a modern society. We do not stay the same over the years - On the outside. We all 'change'. Is it because we "mature" (change) in order to properly function in a modern society? I think I read in the bible or somewhere, paraphrasing here, "When I was a child I spake like a child, thought like a child, and acted like a child. When I became a man, I put away childish things." 

But look deep inside yourself to the real _'you'_. (Not you Tsuyoiko or Kama, but anyone in general). Not the you you present to the world outside, but the real _'you'_ behind the mask you show the outside world. The _'you'_ you are when no one is around that you would never let the outside world see. The _'you'_ who picks their nose when alone. The middle aged you who dances in front of the mirror naked and makes funny faces that no one else can see. Or the _'you'_ who plays air guitar naked in the bedroom or something else that would be deemed stupid or lame by others. The _'you'_ who scratches their arse or "other" areas while reading a book or while watching TV alone. The _'you'_ who desires to be young and carefree again when there were no worries save for a little homework or what you were going to do tomorrow.

I believe that that _'you'_ is still there in all it's glory and never leaves. It's just that, as we age and progress through life, we are expected to act according to society's dictates and that's what we do on a daily basis from what we read and what we learn and what we are taught. We are kind of forced to put away all those "childish things" that are still with us and have never left us. I may be 50 years old, but I still feel inside like I did when I was a teenager or younger and honestly, I sometimes act that way in private and around my wife of 20 years, but NEVER in public. And NEVER around someone I don't trust. I'm sure we all do the same. I may have learned alot of things and experienced alot, and "matured" to the outside world, but I still am the same person I always was and will always be. It's just that my body has become older and because of that I am expected to act in a certain way. And I do, because if I don't I would be considered immature and childish and maybe even abnormal according to society.

Think about someone famous you know like President Bush or PM Tony Blair, or even Saddam Hussein or Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie. Do you think they don't scratch their arse or pick their nose or act foolish and childlike when naked in front of mirror alone or in front of their significant other that they love and trust? Of course they do. I'll bet they even fart in front of their significant other and laugh about it. Everybody does. (At least I HOPE they do and it is not just me!) However, can you imagine them doing that outside of private life? It's just that that person, the real 'them' or 'you, is never shown to the outside world and is reserved only for yourself or those you trust and love.

----------


## wonderpt

As a catholic I believe in heaven :-D

----------


## Mars Man

Good morning folks !! I can't wait until next week !! The uni will have some special 'off campus' classes and so the regular ones, including my seminar classes, will be called off--I'll have time to do *a lot* of catch-up posting !! Oh boy, Oh girl,...I just can't wait !! 

Thanks for the nice analogy Pachipro, I think it was very well done. I can especially appreciate the automobile usage because I had also once analogically used it in a paper on _Body Soul and Spirit_. Thank you also for your explaining your position on my encouragement; I think it will make a nice discussion of what's out there. I would hope to keep a degree of methodology about it, if agreeable, and to the degree possible. 

It may be better to first look at some primary subjects and reason any conclusions on those, before building the argumentation. I will carefully go over the details of what you have posted which I am, to a fair degree familiar with, and that would come up later on, I think. Not to disregard what you have presented in any way, no, but simple to say that it may be slightly jumping the gun--and there are counter arguments to the proposed conclusions which could stand some further investigation, I have reasoned.

Here, and for now, It may be good to firstly lay out just what _consciousness_ is, and look at that together: I would present, for now, that consciousness could be seen as the _aggregate of being aware of the internal self and external non-self_

The sub-conscious would not be included to the degree that it cannot be communicated through explanation by conscious operation (even hypnotic state cannot provide that to any nearly absolute nor valid degree--bibliographies later). Lost memory would not be included for the same above reasons--except hypnotic states evidently provide better results here. Retained information derived, from lack of any better understanding and term, the paranormal _would_ be included here. 

I'll leave it here, to let this air out well enough, before moving on.  :Wavey:

----------


## Void

so, what we`ve got that far (sorry, quoting without originator)



> 1. 
> as I don't believe in the soul, that means that I believe in 
> the eternity of the matter and energy that compose us.





> 2. 
> I believe in some kind of existence of the soul after death (...)
> I believe in the soul. I'm not sure how to explain, but I think 
> it is part of the energy that composes us.





> 3. I believe in reincarnation.





> 4. I firmly believe that we all have a soul that survives 
> to be reborn again or to go on to higher things. And I believe 
> that the soul is pure energy/matter. (...)
> I believe that we continue to survive when we depart this physical plane.


Some of them, certianly coincide with each other. But let me point at
some spots i find sort of "incomplete"

1) if my knowledge and memory doesn`t fail me, matter is form of energy, ne?
2) the concept of "physical plane". This of cours correlates with 1st point. 
What is meant by _physical_? Some solid substance? Objects which can be
percieved through human senses? Objects (entities) which can be percieved 
through their interaction with various scientific devices?

The concept of soul very often leads to the confrontation of idealists and 
materialists. One of russian philosophers Peter Uspensky in his "Tertium 
Organum" around 1911 wrote that it doesn`t really matter what one would put into the base of the world (ideal or material), the most important to be
congruent and consequential in one`s further. He said that science
needs a monistic universe (as i recall, he tended to incline to idealism),
some would say that it is close to holistic approach.

Well, what am i trying so awkwardly to lead to? hell knows  :Laughing:  But, defining
_"soul"_ we can come out from different assumptions (back to quotes above)

1.a.
set of some feeling, emotions and character traits is named _soul_, just
to ease (or simplify) the classification and manipulation of concepts

1.b.
energy which disappears after death (turns into another form or dissipated)

2.3.4
(i combined these, although i have some questions (see below))
energy which doesn`t disappear after death 

*questions*
@ Kinsao
<< but I think it is part of the energy that composes us. >>
What is meant under "us". Could you, please, explicate?

@ Pachipro
<<... or to go on to higher things [...] when we depart this physical plane >> 
what is meant under "physical plane" and "higher things"

 :Blush: 
more to follow on other inputs by Pachipro and Mars Man

----------


## Void

> *by Mars Man* 
> Here, and for now, It may be good to firstly lay out just what consciousness is, and look at that together: I would present, for now, that _consciousness could be seen as the aggregate of being aware of the internal self and external non-self_





> * from dictionary* 
> aware 
> - having or showing realization or perception; bearing in mind; attentive to;
> having knowledge, cognizance or understanding; alert and fully informed;


i can agree with definition but not completely. That seems to me that this definition static, i.e. describes final result. Consciousness is dynamic, not just object but also a process. I`ll return to this a bit later

One of the problems of schizophrenics is that they don`t draw the line between inner world and outer world. For example, he might talk to you in their mind, come to some conclusions and such, and later when he meets you he might act referring to this "conversation" (but, more likely, you won`t be able to understand him) They see things other don`t see, or have "wild" assumptions about things other find normal and regular.
But _normal_ and _being normal_ are such touchy concepts  :Evil: 




> *by Pachipro* 
> To me, the brain is just a conduit, a "resting place" so to speak, the most complex organ of the physical body, in order that the soul/conciousness can experience the five senses in this physical world of ours.
> (...)
> The brain is a complex physical object while the conciousness/soul is not. The soul just resides in the brain and cannot escape or leave until the death of the physical body.


err, you mean conciousness/soul is not physical, or not complex, or both?
Personally, i don`t know whether soul/conciousness resides in a brain, or it is
entirely product of a brain (like "the same way liver produces bile brain 
produces thought" - loose quotation). I prefer to think about "soul" in terms
of energy, but can`t say what happens after brain`s death or body`s death.

One of the purposes of CNS is to regulate some physiological activities of our 
body (those which are not covered by two other regulating systems). In case of human beings we`ve got another function for a brain to regulate the interaction of individual with others (on social level), to regulate the ... ... self-interaction and some other emergent activities which i am unable to name now.

Before our mind (soul/consciousness) becomes aware of smth this smth must be "introduced" into it somehow. Isn`t it a process of reflection? Which at least includes three constituents: object, subject and knowledge. Where does object comes from in case of cognition of internal self? How much comes from outside and how much from inside?

Now, if to think about mammals. Can anyone here show what is the difference between human brain and theirs, since i am not aware? They, certainly aware of external world (in some way, to some extent), but what about internal self?
 :Poh:

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> Can one really believe that we cease to live/exist after the death of the physical body when research by MD's with credentials prove otherwise? Or are all these people just imagining the same experiences?


For me the fact that they are MDs would not be enough. They would have to conduct their research using proper scientific method and publish in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. As far as I can ascertain, Moody published his findings in a best-selling book, not a journal. To quote Psychology Today, "Moody's evidence is largely anecdotal". His methods seem to me to suffer from confirmation bias - the people he tries to put in touch with their dead relatives are expecting (or at least hoping for) it to work. NT Skeptics  (OK, I know they're biased in their own way) give a good description, as does Skeptic Dictionary.

Moody's descriptions of near-death experiences prompted psychiatric researcher Ronald Siegel to investigate NDEs, as they sounded very similar to his studies for “Hallucinations”, published in Scientific American, Oct. 1977. He remains convinced that they are just hallucinations - I think because his studies were truly scientific, and he was not suffering from confirmation bias. CSICOP detail the similarities:


> Viewed scientifically, the out-of-body experiences are actually hallucinations that can occur under anesthesia when one is nowhere near death, as well as when one is falling asleep, or even just relaxing or meditating, or that can be experienced in migraine and epilepsy. The tunnel-travel experience is again an hallucination, one attributed to the particular structure of the visual cortex, the visual-information-processing portion of the brain (Blackmore 1991), or to pupil widening due to oxygen deprivation (Woerlee 2004). And the life review results from the dying oxygen-starved brain stimulating cells in the temporal lobe and thus arousing memories.


Basically the view I take is to look for an alternative explanation to every account - if an explanation can be found that is equally plausible, and it also happens to fit in with our current scientific knowledge, than that is the explanation I will opt for. The hallucination theory sounds very plausible to me, and it has the added advantage that it is understood by science.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> But look deep inside yourself to the real _'you'_


I agree with you that there is a 'core' to our being that remains more-or-less unchanged throughout life. It's hard for me to imagine a 'me' that doesn't like books, or a 'conservative me', or a 'non-neurotic me'. But I don't think it proves the existence of any consciousness separate from the brain. 

The 'core me' is that way because of my genes, the anatomy of my brain and my earliest experiences. I love books because everyone I have ever known in my family loves books - it's probably a mix of nature and nurture. I am a socialist because I was brought up that way. And I'm neurotic because my maternal grandmother and my paternal grandfather suffered with anxiety and I have inherited it from them. 

If someone creates a 'miraculous' gene therapy that can cure my anxiety though, I will be a different person won't I? I would argue yes, because that part of me that is at my core is in my genes, not in a 'soul'. It's hard to imagine I would still be the same person - my counsellor told me I will never be cured, I just have to learn to live and cope with it, so a 'miraculous' cure has got to change me. 

Equally, a severe blow to the head that destroyed the wrong cognitive abilities might kill my love of books. I might still remember that I used to love books, not because it is in a 'soul', but because the part of my brain where those memories are stored was unaffected by the injury. 

I might become a conservative someday (god forbid), because my life experiences might leave me disillusioned. My parents have certainly become more right-wing as they've gotten older. If you'd seen me on a protest march during the Miners' Strike in '83/'84 and asked me if my parents would ever vote Tory I would never have believed it - but their experiences have changed even that which was at their core.

----------


## Pachipro

> Basically the view I take is to look for an alternative explanation to every account - if an explanation can be found that is equally plausible, and it also happens to fit in with our current scientific knowledge, than that is the explanation I will opt for.


Some very valid arguments have been presented here and unless there is valid, solid proof for all to see I guess a consensus will never be reached. As with anything, there will always be those "for" and those "against". However, it is interesting to debate this subject as it goes to the very core of our existance of "Why are we here and what happens to us after the death of the physical body?" And debate is needed with all sides presenting their views lest we fall back into the Dark Ages being fed a line that those in control want us to believe and adhere to. I mean they have no valid proof to back up their beliefs either. Neither, I believe, does current scientific knowledge other than explaination based on "theory". Why must it "fit in with current scientific knowledge" to be plausible? Does not a laymans own actual experience or findings count for anything? Or must anyone who presents an argument countering current beliefs have 'credentials' or letters after their name in order to be taken seriously? The answer, sadly, seems to be 'yes'. As Tsuyoiko pointed out above, Scientific explaination is the option most people will opt for. 

I mean I, myself can solidly affirm that we exist after the death of the physical body, but I have no proof to back up my claims, other than my own experiences. Nor am I a scientist or Phd who can properly word my views into a peer reviewed paper. In the Dark Ages I might well have been burned at the stake for stating my experiences and beliefs and 'going against the grain."

Back in the Dark Ages and the not too distant past it was solidly believed that one should never wash their hands before surgery. Before the advent of trains, 'scientists' of the day swore that people on a moving vehicle like that would die as all the oxygen would be pushed through and out of the train and that the passengers would suffocate! "Scientists' of the day swore that heavier than air craft could never fly! Impossible they said. And because these people had 'credentials' people took them at their word. Galileo himself was almost executed for his beliefs that the earth and planets revolve around the sun and not vice versa. And he had the proof! The scientists and religious people of the day just refused to look into his telescope.

The truth is no one knows all there is to know nor will it ever be so. And what gets me the most is that those with 'credentials' or letters after their name, swear that their beliefs are the final word and that anyone who believes otherwise is a fool and crazy.

I just wish that these 'credentialized' people would have open minds and be willing to look at other avenues of explaination, much like the people on this board, instead of saying such and such is impossible. I wonder how many more wonderful discoveries could be advanced in this world if so called 'experts' on a subject would just be willing to consider an alternate point of view. There's no telling where we would be today.




> The hallucination theory sounds very plausible to me, and it has the added advantage that it is understood by science.


But is it REALLY understood by science? Unless they themselves have a hallucination or experience what others have how can the really understand it? Or are they just taking the easy way out because it doesn't fit in with their beliefs? Are they just using the escape of _Achems Razor_ that, when all else fails, the simplist answer tends to be the correct answer? End of discussion. We are the experts and our answer is the final, correct one. Lop off his head!

I am talking about the scientific and spiritual communities here and not anyone on this board but, IMO that is the epitomy of arrogance and has probably done more to hinder scientific and spiritual progress than anything else.

----------


## bossel

> Does not a laymans own actual experience or findings count for anything?


It depends, but which findings do you have? You hallucinated...




> Or must anyone who presents an argument countering current beliefs have 'credentials' or letters after their name in order to be taken seriously? The answer, sadly, seems to be 'yes'. As Tsuyoiko pointed out above, Scientific explaination is the option most people will opt for.


You don't need "credentials or letters after your name" to subscribe to scientific thought & to come up with scientifically valid arguments. Saying you hallucinated something & you _felt_ it to be real is hardly scientific.





> I mean I, myself can solidly affirm that we exist after the death of the physical body, but I have no proof to back up my claims, other than my own experiences.


You've been dead? How many times?
Seriously, science actually means that you have more than your own experiences, it means that your findings can be validated independently.




> Galileo himself was almost executed for his beliefs that the earth and planets revolve around the sun and not vice versa. And he had the proof! The scientists and religious people of the day just refused to look into his telescope.


Your idea of what a scientist is seems a bit strange.




> And what gets me the most is that those with 'credentials' or letters after their name, swear that their beliefs are the final word and that anyone who believes otherwise is a fool and crazy.


Credentials or letters, hmm. What do you actually mean by that? What you describe here doesn't sound very scientific (although there definitely are a number of scientists who act like that, but from my own experience your description fits teachers better than scientists).




> But is it REALLY understood by science? Unless they themselves have a hallucination or experience what others have how can the really understand it?


You need to have a flu yourself to understand the reasons for why & how it works?




> that is the epitomy of arrogance and has probably done more to hinder scientific and spiritual progress than anything else.


Scientific & _spiritual_ progress?

----------


## Mars Man

First of all, let me say that I can feel where you are coming from Pachipro, I can feel the rush of excitement, the appeal for common ground, if you will, and the desire to help people out by encouraging them to think about all the possibilities. I don't think you would be alone in that matter, even if you may be coming from a different perspective. 

Void san, I understand what you have presented, and concur, but I didn't mean to have to take it to deep of a philosophical level. I would say that the word _aggregate_ would be important. It doesn't have to necessarily be one frame of consciousness. (and that would be the overall picture for those of multiple personalities, so to speak) The matter of 'internal self awareness' would be simply the matter of knowing or not knowing how you feel--both physically and emotionally--, the reason for an act, including speaking and reasoning through on something. I don't think it would be within the general scope of this tread to dig much, if any deeper than this, since the primary matter is 'life after death' and since, as it has presented itself to me, usually boils down to 'the present conscious self' after death. 

You know, I die, as all life forms die, but I'm still me. I still want to drink that beer (which is why they put out the often opened cans of beer by the side of the road where there had been a fatal traffic accident in which one who enjoyed drinking had died) I still speak English, I still can only remember what I remember, know what I know, etc. Carl G. Jung has some interesting ideas of the dead wanting to learn more because they could not--I reason that it was an pre-informed conclusion. 

Pachipro san, my dear Japanese Summer loving friend, I still count on you for your adding to the topic your ideas and experiences, as best you can explain them; and likewise your return comments in your #26--first post on page two.  :Smiling:

----------


## Kinsao

It is impossible for anyone to "know" or "prove" scientifically what happens to the consciousness, or the "self", or the "soul" (if you believe in such) after death, because the only way of knowing for sure is to experience it. 

There can be scientific experiments to measure things like energy, and energy transferrance, but not any proof of what it actually _feels_ like to die - and after - and _how we would experience it_ (or indeed if we will consciously "experience" anything).

It's necessary to die in order to find out what happens next. 




> @ Kinsao
> << but I think it is part of the energy that composes us. >>
> What is meant under "us". Could you, please, explicate?


Wow, that's a difficult one!  :Embarrassment:  To explain what I meant by "us", when I was referring to human beings, and I don't have the capability to explain "what is human" and the whole mystery of our identity, in both the scientific way and the more abstract, "spiritual" sense... But in that context, when I referred to "the energy which composes us", I was talking about our physical existance and the matter which makes up our bodies, plus energy... because energy and "matter" we don't always think of them as the same thing; energy can be measured scientifically but it can be also invisible to us. (Uhhh... I'm not sure what I'm driving at...  :Sorry:  )

----------


## Tsuyoiko

Wow Pachipro, you are really giving my brain some exercise! This is great!


> Neither, I believe, does current scientific knowledge other than explaination based on "theory"


That's very true. Unfortunately in layman's terms, the word 'theory' implies something that works on paper but may not apply as well in practice. In science' 'theory' has a more rigorous meaning - a claim that is supported by as much as 100% of current evidence.


> Why must it "fit in with current scientific knowledge" to be plausible?


Because the whole point of science is to explain the universe as accurately as possible.


> Does not a laymans own actual experience or findings count for anything?


Only if it is supported by a lot of data. Human beings can be mistaken, particularly if they are hallucinating. A true hallucination is indistinguishable from real experience - if you know you are hallucinating it is only a pseudo-hallucination. In other words, it is impossible to know that you are hallucinating. 


> Or must anyone who presents an argument countering current beliefs have 'credentials' or letters after their name in order to be taken seriously?


Actually there are a lot of people with credentials who I don't take seriously. Credentials are not enough. I admire people like Darwin, Einstein and Gould not because of their credentials, but because of their commitment to scientific method. They accepted only that which they could observe or prove mathematically.


> I mean I, myself can solidly affirm that we exist after the death of the physical body, but I have no proof to back up my claims, other than my own experiences.


I think we are hardwired to believe in life after death. In a way I still sort of believe in reincarnation deep in my subconscious, but I have learnt not to trust my subconscious when my reason presents evidence to the contrary. It was hard work, but worth it.


> Scientific explaination is the option most people will opt for.


If NDE type 'visions' were only experienced by people whose heart has stopped, if science didn't see any examples of people who have had similar experiences without being near to death, and if science had no idea of what was happening in the brains of those affected, the experiences might be considered evidence of life after death. But it seems to me that science has enough evidence to consider NDEs to be hallucinations.


> Nor am I a scientist or Phd who can properly word my views into a peer reviewed paper.


I don't think you have anything to worry about in that regard. You are certainly one of the most eloquent members here, and well-respected by everyone for your varied experiences, and your ability to describe them in an interesting way.


> Back in the Dark Ages and the not too distant past it was solidly believed that one should never wash their hands before surgery. Before the advent of trains, 'scientists' of the day swore that people on a moving vehicle like that would die as all the oxygen would be pushed through and out of the train and that the passengers would suffocate! "Scientists' of the day swore that heavier than air craft could never fly! Impossible they said. And because these people had 'credentials' people took them at their word.


Although these philosophers have since been found to be mistaken, the methods they have employed have evolved into methods which now allow scientists to make much more accurate conclusions. Back then the technology and communications available were not sufficient for the philosophers to reach very accurate conclusions, but we are in a much better position now.


> The truth is no one knows all there is to know nor will it ever be so.


Good! What would be the point if we knew everything? Being human is about learning.


> I just wish that these 'credentialized' people would have open minds and be willing to look at other avenues of explaination, much like the people on this board, instead of saying such and such is impossible. I wonder how many more wonderful discoveries could be advanced in this world if so called 'experts' on a subject would just be willing to consider an alternate point of view. There's no telling where we would be today.


I agree with you here, to an extent. Each paradigm shift (like the Copernican Revolution, Natural Selection or Einstein's Theory of Relativity) takes longer than it need to, because the (usually) older scientists, who are more respectable, are reluctant to accept the new findings of the (usually) younger, more open-minded scientists. So I think scientists do need to be open-minded, but only to a point. We all know that Darwin discovered Natural Selection. Some of you may also know that Alfred Wallace simultaneously reached the same conclusions, and both scientists were equally credited at the time. So why does history favour Darwin? IMO, because he was the better scientist. He accepted only that which was supported by evidence, whereas Wallace believed in things which contradicted science, such as phrenology and spiritualism.


> But is it REALLY understood by science? Unless they themselves have a hallucination or experience what others have how can the really understand it?


Because they study it. They interview all kinds of people who have had similar experiences, they study their brainwaves and test what happens when they vary the conditions or substances involved to see what happens. Paraphrasing Bossel, do we refuse to trust an oncologist because he has not himself suffered from cancer? No, we trust him because he is an expert through study. 


> Are they just using the escape of _Achems Razor_ that, when all else fails, the simplist answer tends to be the correct answer?


Scientists certainly do employ Occam's razor, quite rightly, and not just as a last resort. Any concepts that are unnecessary to explain a phenomenon should be ignored, IMO. How about this example: your car won't start because the engine is damp. Do you conclude that some morning dew got in there, or that a fairy poured some water in there? Obviously you go with the first explanation, as it adequately explains the situation, without resorting to any extraneous agency.

Why do I have so much faith in science? Look at scientific revolutions over the past centuries. The Copernican Revolution was huge. It altered almost everything we believed about the structure of the universe and the place of our planet and ourselves in the grand scheme. Natural Selection was big - but nowhere near the scale of Copernicus. It changed our view of the age of the universe, but not its structure. It overthrew our previous beliefs about how we got here. Then consider Relativity. How far reaching was that as a revolution? It didn't really change anything for the average Joe. I believe the reason that each revolution seems to require us to change less of what we believe is because each revolution takes us closer to the truth. I think now, in comparison to 500 years ago, we are just tweaking. In comparison to what we still have to learn, we are just scratching the surface.

----------


## Pachipro

Thanks for all the comments and replies. This subject has sure generated some great debate and I'd like to thank Tsuyoiko for starting it. Unfortunately it is late and I'll need a day or two to compose a rebuttal. In the meantime has anyone ever studied Edgar Cayce? I mean really studied him, his readings concerning the humand mind, soul and conciousness; reincarnation, karma, life after death, and such?

Edgar Cayce was just a conutry man from Kentucky who could put himself into a trance and connect with the "Universal Conciousness." While under this state he could heal anybody of any illness without ever laying eyes on them. The medical profession of his day were astounded and had no answer for how he could do it. But do it he could when the doctors of his day couldn't. His readings are all documented on paper and survive to this day. How does one go about explaining this? Was he just a freak who got lucky with his answers? I think not.

His website says he has had more near-death experiences than anyone ever documented. He could leave his body and journey into afterlife realms and has made over, a documented, 14,000 journeys into the realms of the conciousness and afterlife. He is considered the father of holistic medicine by JAMA, the prestigious medical Journal of the American Medical Association.

For starters click on this link and read what he has to say about conciousness. If you manage to read till the end, just click on 'next' at the bottom of the page and then 'next' on the bottom of the following page and so on for his views on all we are discussing here. I have read them all.

His experiences are documented by the medical profession while mine are not. Does anyone, after seriously reading these pages (and I doubt many will), think he was just hallucinating? Or will most people refuse to "look into Galileo's telescope" for fear of finding what may actually be the truth of why we are here and why we do not die?

I do hope some will read them, or a few, and present their opinions here as I really am interested in hearing opposing views. If you are like me and have a thirst for knowledge outside the box of "official science", you will not be able to stop reading.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

@ Pachipro - thanks for the link. So far - and I've only read a small amount - there is some that makes partial sense to me. I don't think the idea of a universal consciousness is contradictory to science. I can envisage the possibility that our minds are connected in some way that hasn't yet been discovered. I've had experiences of my own that suggest as much. I also believe in a form of karma - I think that every action we take changes us, and that we should keep it in mind every time we make a decision. And what changes us changes everyone around us, if only in a small way. So I think a seemingly unimportant action could have far-reaching consequences. This is an area in which science is only just starting to make progress - chaos theory. I'll come back to this link when I have more time. :Smiling:

----------


## Tsuyoiko

I've been giving this topic a lot of thought - plus I'm reading 2001 - and something just occurred to me that seems so obvious I can't believe I didn't think of it before. Still sticking by everything I have said before, I can now see a scenario in which life after death might be possible - although we don't have the necessary technology yet. Assume that everything we are is stored in our brains - which I firmly believe. Isn't it possible that that information could be copied or transferred to a different format that could survive the death of our physical bodies? Providing our consciousness could survive the process, that would equate to life after death wouldn't it? Does anyone see any objections?

----------


## Void

forgive me for being rude, but why you think that life after death (if there is any) must include all the single memories of yours and character traits? Real 'you' it`s not the one who likes the bear and tend to be right- or left-winged... imagine the case of severe amnesia... without return what is real you then?

And, science just opened some doors a bit (some and very few of them), if there is smth such as soul, sooner or later means of measuring its phenomena (whatever it is, current, charge, smth else) will be created. If thereis no any soul, then there is no need to die to discover it  :Laughing: 

Besides, if you look deep into your subconscious without shoving it away in intellectual embarassement and chauvinism you`ll find out screaming piece of living being eagering for eternal life, terrified by death  :Evil:

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> forgive me for being rude, but why you think that life after death (if there is any) must include all the single memories of yours and character traits? Real 'you' it`s not the one who likes the bear and tend to be right- or left-winged... imagine the case of severe amnesia... without return what is real you then?


So what constitutes the 'real Void'?


> And, science just opened some doors a bit (some and very few of them)


I agree, as I said in post#39


> In comparison to what we still have to learn, we are just scratching the surface.


But I still maintain that the scientific _method_ is the best way to discover what's out there.


> Besides, if you look deep into your subconscious without shoving it away in intellectual embarassement and chauvinism you`ll find out screaming piece of living being eagering for eternal life, terrified by death


I don't think I said I shove away my subconscious, just that I don't trust it if it is contrary to my reason. IMO, the subconscious is where our instincts reside, and as humans we don't have to be a slave to instinct. But I have reached the conclusions I have partly through a great deal of introspection. I think chauvinism is a strong word to use. I have never claimed that my understanding is superior, and I've tried to explain my stance in as detailed a way as possible. And I freely admit that I'm terrified of death - all the more because I am convinced that it will be the end.

----------


## Doc

I personally believe that there is the possibility in life after death. I also believe in the possibility of reincarnation, spirituality, and even ghosts. I also feel that there are some things science will never be able to explain and probably shouldn't anyway, and bashing your head in because the scientific method doesn't apply is rather silly. However, since the topic does not have the options that I want to choose in my believe in life after death, I am not going to delve into the topic anymore than I already have. I wish the best of luck with everybody else and their agruments on the issue, and want to say keep up the good work for making this thread enjoying to read and thought provoking at the same time.  :Smiling: 

Doc  :Wavey:

----------


## Mars Man

[QUOTE=Void]... imagine the case of severe amnesia... without return what is real you then?
Some good questions there Void. I would say that arguably, the former self would be deemed the real person in that case. I would stand with Tsuyoiko on this one; by far most works I've come across by neuroscientists and psychologists put the self firstly in the memory banks--explicit, long-term. Of course it would surely include other factors such as the hormonal content and tendencies, basal ganglia operation, and up-to-that-point learned firing patterns/networks, etc.

The movie _Memento_ in which a man who has lost his short-term (or working) memory, was said to have been inspired by one HM. (_Scientific American_ Feb. 2005, Making Memories Stick pp 58-65) At the age of nine, a head injury sustained in a bicycle accident left him with defilitating epilepsy. The only way to relieve his seizures was to remove part of his hippocampus and adjoining brain regions. Surgery succeeded in reducing the brain seizures but inadvertently severed the mysterious link between short-term and long-term memory--causing information destined for what is known as _declarative memory_ (people, places, events) to not be able to reach its final resting place in the cortex, for long-term memory. Each time he saw the doctor, which was on a monthly basis for some time, it was like meeting a new person. I would say that the real person had ceased to be after that accident, only if in the fact that his long-term memory never grew with his mental experience from that point onward. (and there are others)

I would still stand for trying to get a better grasp on what this _'consciousness'_ would entail--without, of course, going too deeply into philosophical treatsies. If the regions of my brain were damaged to the degree that I could not know what I had understood and known of myself up to the point in time of that damage, the 'I' up until then would have already died to that degree, I'd reason. I don't see how, at the moment, we could say for sure that full *prior* consciousness would still be intact and operating inside _my_ head, but only unseeable or undetectable to those on the outside. But I'm still searching and looking. Also, I'll check out that site Pachipro san.  :Smiling:

----------


## Void

> So what constitutes the 'real Void'?


i`ll leave it to myself, not the public  :Sou ka:  



> IMO, the subconscious is where our instincts reside, and as humans we don't have to be a slave to instinct.


instincts rather belong to un-conscious, smth you don`t have to think about and reflect. Besides, humans are the only animals which can bypass most of the instincts (and even go against the most strong ones like self-preservation instinct). But it`s so difficult for us to deal with emotions, for ex  :Laughing: 
Subcounscious is different level of our being. There are different points in psychology on this matter (psychology, Mars Man-sama, not philosophy, though somewhere they do overlap =) ). Some call it the "vault" of consciousness, some say it`s such "subdivision" which contains "unshaped" and "wordless" entities, others claim that there is no sharp line:
consciousness is reflexive, subconsciousness - areflexive forms of counsciousness in general (or as it)
(i really doubt what word to use in english: _reflexive_ or _reflective_, since it sounds and written the same way in Russian)

----------


## Void

> I think chauvinism is a strong word to use.


not at all. The problem of many people that they are afraid to look bad in other people`s eyes, and they think that critiscism deals with their attitude toward others. No, Tsuyoiko, you are being intellectually chauvinistic toward other parts of your multifaceted Self

----------


## Frank D. White

> I can come back as a pampered cat.


 I want to return to life as a cat with an owner like I am. Sleep all day, eat when hungry; be petted and played with everyday. Get to hear "I love you" A hundred times a day. What a life !

Uncle Frank

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> instincts rather belong to un-conscious, smth you don`t have to think about and reflect. Besides, humans are the only animals which can bypass most of the instincts (and even go against the most strong ones like self-preservation instinct). But it`s so difficult for us to deal with emotions, for ex 
> Subcounscious is different level of our being.


I'm not convinced of the distinction (Freud was a charlatan, IMO) but that's a whole other discussion :Relieved:  


> not at all. The problem of many people that they are afraid to look bad in other people`s eyes, and they think that critiscism deals with their attitude toward others. No, Tsuyoiko, you are being intellectually chauvinistic toward other parts of your multifaceted Self


I'm afraid of being misunderstood, because that implies that I haven't argued well and that I've failed to put my point across.

You may call it intellectual chauvinism - I call it self-awareness, self-examination and common sense. My subconsious has its place - it reveals to me the inner workings of my mind, my hidden motivations and desires and it's a useful tool for _self_-understanding. But if I want to understand what's out there, then reason is the tool I use.

Anyway, that's just the approach I use. I wouldn't presume to tell anyone else how they should view the universe, or their own selves. Everyone has to find their own path.

----------


## Mycernius

I must look into more detail on what has been said on this thread, but for now my thougts.
I believe in ghosts, mainly because I saw one, or rather something that I cannot explain. Whether they are remains, an after image if you will, of a person, or an actually part of someones soul I cannot say. I do not, though, have a great belief in mediums, especially the media ones. Conmen and very good at reading people IMHO. I didn't vote for anything else because I won't know until I die. The best thing I ever heard from someone about life after death was a guy I used to work with. He believed that when he died he could then roam free in the universe seeing everyting else that we can only imagine being stuck on one planet. Really beautiful I thought.
I do think one very important question has been overlooked and was post No. 14 by USFI



> where is our "soul" before our birth? Does it exist, or is the soul "born" into existance when we are conceived? Does the brain have to develop for a "soul" to exist? Maybe our souls sit on a shelf or in a box till we have a body to put it in? Do bugs, fish, other mammals, germs, etc. have a soul? Lots of "soulful" thinking can go into this topic!


If you are a Hindu you believe everything has a soul. It's ultimate goal to achive nirvana. But for all those of Islamic, Jewish and Christian beliefs, Do animals have a soul? And where is it before we are born? Philip K. Dick short story, _The Pre-persons,_ raises some very interesting points that cover abortion, souls and what is intelligence.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> I can't believe in heaven/hell because I am quite certain from my learning in neurosciences, psychology and biochemistry that life is nothing more than a biochemical process, and life beings don't have an eternal, immaterial soul. There is no need for it as memory, emotions, personality and conscience can all be explained in neurosciences (if you don't think so, study more, as I have). They can even be altered by electric impulses, injections of chemicals (hormones, neurotransmitters...) or brain operations (lobotomy, neuron implant, etc.).


Say 10 years ago, maybe less, before I had read very much about science in general, and neuroscience in particular, I thought scientists were arrogant, and that they claimed to know more than they actually did. But for anyone interested enough in these subjects to do some reading, I think it would be hard not to be convinced by the evidence of neuroscience. I've yet to hear from anyone who has read a lot on these subjects and still believes in a soul - but if you are out there, I would be very interested to hear why you are not convinced by the scientific evidence.

----------


## Kama

> If you are a Hindu you believe everything has a soul. It's ultimate goal to achive nirvana. But for all those of Islamic, Jewish and Christian beliefs, Do animals have a soul? And where is it before we are born? Philip K. Dick short story, _The Pre-persons,_ raises some very interesting points that cover abortion, souls and what is intelligence.


As it was explained to me in an elementary school animals in Christianity don't have souls. Because of this in Polish when saying "human died" and "animal died" two different words are used. Also, because most people think (are taught to think like this?) cementeries for animals are rarity. 

I do not blindly believe in science. Stephen Hawking last year, if I remmbered correctly, said aloud that he made a mistake 20 years and the reality looked different from what he thought. He is an authority, yes? He is scientist, yes? For me this proves science is just a tool for human, just like parapsychology. I think that using only one method of discovering the world is wrong. Also, not all methods are good for everything. Just like in human sciences, like sociology/psychology/etnography etc. you could ask closed/open questions (closed = choosing a, b, c, d... open = answering questions yourself). Sometimes closed questions are better, sometimes open works better. And sometimes you use a mix of these when asking one person.

I believe in my reality, in my experience. Different people have different lives, experiences, thoughts. There can be some similarites but after all everyone is unique. What I have experienced was true. I KNOW IT. I don't need scientifical experience to prove it. But of course, I am always eager to listen to other people's stories/views and I don't say that only me is right.

----------


## Kama

> Say 10 years ago, maybe less, before I had read very much about science in general, and neuroscience in particular, I thought scientists were arrogant, and that they claimed to know more than they actually did. But for anyone interested enough in these subjects to do some reading, I think it would be hard n ot to be convinced by the evidence of neuroscience. I've yet to hear from anyone who has read a lot on these subjects and still believes in a soul - but if you are out there, I would be very interested to hear why you are not convinced by the scientific evidence.



Well, I haven't read that much... but... I as a person don't want to be just a collection of organic substances, chemical process. 

I wouldn't like to have my body made into soap etc. after I die just because...well...a corpse is really...nothing...just a source...

Well, i believe that mind is capable of making incapable things...But did anyone explained why people only use 3-10% (depending on the scientist) mind's capabilities? Why all the 90% is unused? Isn't that too much of a waste? If it is not wasted, then what else is using the rest?

----------


## Mycernius

> As it was explained to me in an elementary school animals in Christianity don't have souls. Because of this in Polish when saying "human died" and "animal died" two different words are used. Also, because most people think (are taught to think like this?) cementeries for animals are rarity.


Why not? Is it down to intelligence or something else? Just because we have the capacity to grasp abstract ideas means that we get an afterlife. The great apes have shown a basic grasp in abstract ideas. They can recognise themselves in a mirror, which means that they have an idea of self. There are severly disabled people who cannot do this. Does this mean that they have no soul and do not have an afterlife to look forward to?. Where do you draw the line between animals, especially the great apes, and humans when it come to life after death?

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> Well, i believe that mind is capable of making incapable things...But did anyone explained why people only use 3-10% (depending on the scientist) mind's capabilities? Why all the 90% is unused? Isn't that too much of a waste? If it is not wasted, then what else is using the rest?


This is just a myth. It may have arisen when we didn't have such a good understanding of the brain. Or it may come from the fact that only about 10% of neurons are firing at any one time. Although there is a still a lot that neuroscience has to learn, scientists pretty much know the function of every area of the brain:



occipital lobe: yellow 
parietal lobe: orange 
frontal lobe: red 
temporal lobe: green 
brain stem: black 
cerebellum: blue

The science writer Rita Carter has likened our current knowledge of the brain to a sixteenth century map of the world - that was in 1998 though, so by now it is probably more (I'm guessing like a seventeenth century map?) - the outlines of all the main areas are known, we have a detailed knowledge of the interiors of some areas, and an overview of the rest. But IMO, any discoveries are going to add to what we know, not disprove what we already understand about the brain.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> Why not? Is it down to intelligence or something else? Just because we have the capacity to grasp abstract ideas means that we get an afterlife. The great apes have shown a basic grasp in abstract ideas. They can recognise themselves in a mirror, which means that they have an idea of self. There are severly disabled people who cannot do this. Does this mean that they have no soul and do not have an afterlife to look forward to?. Where do you draw the line between animals, especially the great apes, and humans when it come to life after death?


_Wild Minds_ by Marc Hauser is a really good book about just how much animal minds can do. It's a lot more than we are led to believe - even some monkeys can recognise themselves in a mirror, and pigeons can count!

----------


## Duo

My friend and I were talkin about this yesterday by chance and we were both getting scared at the idea that after death you just stop existing. Personally, I think the latter is the more plausible option to beleive... although I will grant that I don't think we as humans can quite understand the world as it really is. Sort of the the cave story that Plato uses.

----------


## Pachipro

> Still sticking by everything I have said before, I can now see a scenario in which life after death might be possible - although we don't have the necessary technology yet. Assume that everything we are is stored in our brains - which I firmly believe. Isn't it possible that that information could be copied or transferred to a different format that could survive the death of our physical bodies? Providing our consciousness could survive the process, that would equate to life after death wouldn't it? Does anyone see any objections?


But we DO have the necessary technology! Believe it or not some scientists are working on this at this very moment. They are seriously studying the possibility of "downloading" the info in your brain and then "uploading" it again into a cloned body or computer. Weird, but true and they say it is possible. After all what is the human brain but a really complex computer.

You started me on a search that led to some fascinating websites and a company that is doing this same thing. Check out the company called Braintec here. I think you will find this as fascinating as I did. And to answer your question, it's not only possible, but is being done! And it kind of scares me in a way.

However, IMO I don't think this would constitute life after death. I hope I can be articulate here, but I believe that if this were possible it would still not constitute "you". Sure it could have all your memories and experiences and may even look like you, but there would be no, for lack of a better word, soul. By soul I mean the person/energy/conciousness that is the real you residing in the brain. Would it be able to think as you did with your morals and beliefs or would it just be a "mindless" computer set on autopilot? Or would it just be a "vacant" container awaiting a soul/conciousness to inhabit it that may, or may not, be 'you'? Sure makes one think.

Anybody volunteering to click the link on the bottom of the Braintec page to become a test subject?

----------


## Pachipro

> I do think one very important question has been overlooked and was post No. 14 by USFI
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> where is our "soul" before our birth? Does it exist, or is the soul "born" into existance when we are conceived? Does the brain have to develop for a "soul" to exist? Maybe our souls sit on a shelf or in a box till we have a body to put it in? Do bugs, fish, other mammals, germs, etc. have a soul? Lots of "soulful" thinking can go into this topic!


Good point. Sorry I didn't notice this before. This may seem "way out there' to some, but I do not claim to believe in it one way or the other as there is no way to prove or disprove it. I am just relaying what I have read from several sources.

From all the paranormal literature I have read, it is said that the soul does exist on a higher vibrational plane. Before being "born" the soul selects, with guidance from higher souls, it's life, parents, and country of birth based on previous lives and 'karma' and only enters the body at the moment of actual birth. There is a time limit, like several weeks, when the soul can "change it's mind" and exit the body. It is said that this may very well explain the phenomena of "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) in an otherwise healthy baby. After the time limit, the only other way to exit the body is through death.

----------


## bossel

> But we DO have the necessary technology!
> [...]
> You started me on a search that led to some fascinating websites and a company that is doing this same thing. Check out the company called Braintec here. I think you will find this as fascinating as I did. And to answer your question, it's not only possible, but is being done! And it kind of scares me in a way.


It scares me that there are people who really believe this!
Braintec is an art project by Rosanne van Klaveren, not a scientific project. If you wouldn't be quite as credulous, you'd have done at least a little more research & you'd have found out.





> They are seriously studying the possibility of "downloading" the info in your brain and then "uploading" it again into a cloned body or computer. Weird, but true and they say it is possible. After all what is the human brain but a really complex computer.


Yes, the brain is kind of an organic computer. But it's far too complex for human science to understand at the moment. Data storage seems to be dynamic (& usually far from exact), there is not one defined place in your brain where you could find eg. your memories of your 6th birthday. Therefore, at least with current technology, it's impossible to download, or even read, someone's memories.

If you would read some scientific articles about neuroscience once in a while (instead of "paranormal literature") you'd know.

----------


## Pachipro

> It scares me that there are people who really believe this!
> Braintec is an art project by Rosanne van Klaveren, not a scientific project. If you wouldn't be quite as credulous, you'd have done at least a little more research & you'd have found out.


You got me on that one. Should've read more about it first instead of skimming over it as I did and posting it. My bad. I was looking for info on a couple of other researchers I had heard being interviewed on the subject of downloading memories when I came across that yesterday. Just disregard it.

----------


## Sensuikan San

> Yes, the brain is kind of an organic computer. But it's far too complex for human science to understand at the moment. Data storage seems to be dynamic (& usually far from exact), there is not one defined place in your brain where you could find eg. your memories of your 6th birthday. Therefore, at least with current technology, it's impossible to download, or even read, someone's memories.


Just a muse on this one ...

I actually find it quite fascinating to compare the human brain with developing computer technology. One can only wonder if, with a little thought, one might even learn much about one (computer/brain) ... by studying the other ... (brain/computer)?

Computers operate by strict logic. Most natural organisms operate with a more organic, dynamic ... but nevertheless equally strict logic. And logic is ... logic. Is it possible that we may begin to know more about the inner workings of the animal brain .... simply by studying how it (the human brain) ... is developing the computer? 

Is it possible for instance, that the reason why so little of the brain _appears_ to be used .... is that much of it it is _required_ "free space"- to be used as a bloody great "swap file" from time to time? 

Is the mystery of sleep (there appears to be no medical need for it) is solved when one realises that it could be nothing more than a "reboot"?

Is dreaming simply .... "defragging"?

Are the ravages of old age on the mind merely the filling or damaging of a "hard drive"?

Do you lose your cool in a desperate situation because you don't have sufficent "RAM"?

...... Just a few thoughts that flickered through my mind ....

W

----------


## Doc

> Say 10 years ago, maybe less, before I had read very much about science in general, and neuroscience in particular, I thought scientists were arrogant, and that they claimed to know more than they actually did. But for anyone interested enough in these subjects to do some reading, I think it would be hard not to be convinced by the evidence of neuroscience. I've yet to hear from anyone who has read a lot on these subjects and still believes in a soul - but if you are out there, I would be very interested to hear why you are not convinced by the scientific evidence.


There was somebody who wrote a paper that I read quite a few years ago that had a pretty interesting theory about the human soul, and also the subject of neuroscience. The theory was that the "human soul" if you will was made up of a set amount of finite ions. With the change of biochemestry in the brain these ions would adapt and change to the conditions of the biochemical setup of the brain. The theory stated that when you die that the ions are released from the body in a sort of ethreal experience. However, much like most molecules the ions will eventually give out after an estimated 100-1000 years and then the "soul" will truly be turned into nothingness. It was a pretty interesting paper, but I found it a bit hokey in some spots.

I believe in neuroscicence yet I also believe in the possibility of the human soul. No matter how much studying I have done on the subject (neuroscience that is), how convincing it is, and how well supported it is with scientific data and factual evidence I still have this funny feeling that there is something out there that is still yet unknown, or that will eventually change our thoughts scientifically on whether living beings have "souls" or not. 

I mean science is altered to fit our needs all the time. Theories, data, and facts are constantly accpeted, challenged, and disproven, and no matter how much sound data and factual evidence that you have those theories and concepts, they can still be blown out of the water with something new. What is considered scientifically true now, could be disproven twenty years from now with a new theory.

It really is hard to disagree with neuroscience, but I still believe in the possibility of life after death simply because there are just somethings that are beyond our grasp at the current moment. Afterall there are things that are proven 100% impossible by science to be true or to happen that eventually does happen or become true in some werid twist of fate. (Isn't that the theory on how life was created? Simply fate by a series of accidents in the right given condition in nature?) Therefore, I have to agree with Kama on science. It is just a tool to better help appease humanity. The same could be said about religion or anything else for that matter in helping understand the unknown. However, keep in mind that while certain facts, data, laws, theories, and concepts like what an atom is made up of and various other things that are proven to be 100% fact (as there is no disputing in those things), there are still a lot of other things in science that is really just a pseduo-science in the end. (Many of the theories and concepts in cosmology would be a classic example of this.) 

Until our knowledge has expanded there are some things that we will not truly understand for the time being. However, there may be some things we are not meant to know. Is it just a bunch of chemical reactions in the brain, or is there something more to it than that? It is up to you do decide that one, as only time and the expansion of our knowledge will truly tell as far as I am concerned. Therefore, as much as I believe in neuroscience I am not going to sway on one side or the other just to help myself sleep at night considering the fact that it could all change in later on down the road anyway. Does that help answer you question?

Doc  :Wavey:

----------


## Doc

> The science writer Rita Carter has likened our current knowledge of the brain to a sixteenth century map of the world - that was in 1998 though, so by now it is probably more (I'm guessing like a seventeenth century map?) - the outlines of all the main areas are known, we have a detailed knowledge of the interiors of some areas, and an overview of the rest. But IMO, any discoveries are going to add to what we know, not disprove what we already understand about the brain.


That was the one thing that has always excited me about neruoscience. What else could our brains do when we learn more about them? Could those areas that are not used be evolved to have a certain function later on in humanity? Just what exactly are the unexlored parts of our brain capable of? These kinds of questions have helped kick off parapsychology, and does make you truly wonder what else the human brain is capable of. (However, I am not really sold on parapsychology, and consider it more of a pseduo-science more than anything.) 

Doc  :Wavey:

----------


## Void

> Computers operate by strict logic. Most natural organisms operate with a more organic, dynamic ... but nevertheless equally strict logic. And logic is ... logic.
> 
> Is it possible for instance, that the reason why so little of the brain _appears_ to be used .... is that much of it it is _required_ "free space"- to be used as a bloody great "swap file" from time to time? 
> 
> Is the mystery of sleep (there appears to be no medical need for it) is solved when one realises that it could be nothing more than a "reboot"?
> 
> Is dreaming simply .... "defragging"?
> 
> Are the ravages of old age on the mind merely the filling or damaging of a "hard drive"?
> ...


What logic you are reffering to, Sensuikan san? If logic of cause and effect relation, then truly all process in our brain (and not only) abide those rules. If logic of making the decision than it is not equally strict to binary logic. It is held, that once two mathematicians had an arguement whose wife is more beautiful, this arguement ended up with development of rules of fuzzy logic  :Laughing:  Wich is, btw, now also has it`s implementation in computers of all sorts. Is it always _A_ leads to _B_ in human "logic"?

Sleep itself is necessary, because only at this time some chemical compounds (don`t remember which ones, but they are important for the functionality) are produced by our body. "Defragging" as a function of dreaming can be a good computer analogy, as well as it has some others functions, not yet related to PC. For example the range and rate of informational flow our mind can accept and process is limited, but still disregarding the channel capacity of our active consciousness our brain receives almost all of the information our body was able to percept. Dreaming it is also a form of processing the information that fell out of the conscious flow. There are, of course, some other purposes of dreaming.
Btw, if i am not mistaking it`s proven fact that aminals have dreams, too.

Interesting analogy of damaged HDD. For example, perfectly written and once fuctioning well program code can give "bad" results due to the hardware failures, and vice versa no matter how good is device if original code of database is corrupted results will be invalid.

Loss of control in desperate situations can also be caused by poor set of program codes (for ex, you simply don`t know how to respond at giving situation - this is what self-learning about - live creatures are capable of it from the very beginning, machines only coming to it). Another reason can be blocked data communication network, you know how to respond, but signals don`t reach certain areas where the data or code stored.

They are all tightly bound - programs, data and hardware, same seems to be with our brain. The only difference yet is organisation of our memory and search engines. There exist many analogies, i remember Pribram(sp?) when learned about holography said that its ideas, probably, can be implied to the brain functionality as well.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> I mean science is altered to fit our needs all the time. Theories, data, and facts are constantly accpeted, challenged, and disproven, and no matter how much sound data and factual evidence that you have those theories and concepts, they can still be blown out of the water with something new. What is considered scientifically true now, could be disproven twenty years from now with a new theory.


This is true. You have a valid approach - could it be summed up as "science doesn't know everything, so I can believe in things that science hasn't yet proved false"? It's not OK to believe the Earth is flat because science has proved it is roughly spherical. But it's OK to believe in god because science hasn't proved it doesn't exist.

My approach is different, but I think equally valid. It can be summed up as "science doesn't know everything, so if science hasn't proved it exists, I'll assume it doesn't".

But with both approaches we have to be open to the possibility that we could be proved wrong! Who knows, tomorrow we might meet those aliens who brought us to Earth 10,000 years ago who we have ever since been worshiping as gods!

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> Is it possible for instance, that the reason why so little of the brain _appears_ to be used .... is that much of it it is _required_ "free space"- to be used as a bloody great "swap file" from time to time?


I can't remember where I read it now, but apparently that is exactly what some of the seemingly unused portions of the brain are for - repair.

----------


## Doc

> This is true. You have a valid approach - could it be summed up as "science doesn't know everything, so I can believe in things that science hasn't yet proved false"? It's not OK to believe the Earth is flat because science has proved it is roughly spherical. But it's OK to believe in god because science hasn't proved it doesn't exist.


Actually it is more like "science does not know everything, and for the time being what we currently believe has yet to be proven true or false".




> But with both approaches we have to be open to the possibility that we could be proved wrong! Who knows, tomorrow we might meet those aliens who brought us to Earth 10,000 years ago who we have ever since been worshiping as gods!


Kind of like the Brumuda Triangle huh?  :Wink:  I agree with what you are saying, and agree that your point of view is valid, I am just saying though that I am not hung up completely on science. You know my religion/ethics/philosophy/cosmology professor likes to draw a line on the black board in each one of his classes that I have taken. He draws the line all the way across the board and on the left he puts "religion", and on the right he puts "science". 

Then he says this, "You see this board. There are two extremes to the arguments of the unknown and belief structures today. You are either a believer in science or a believer in religion. If you are in either one of those extremes get out of my class now. I do not teach the Bible like you want it, and I do not teach science like you want it. If you are still here in the class that only mean one thing, you are in the middle. If you are not in the middle and are still here I plan to get you that way before the end of the semester as you will find out that being in the middle is not a bad thing. Rather it helps you discern the facts from fiction and vice versa, and also respect each other's point of view."

That is where I am at, in the middle. I do not believe strictly in religion or science. I think by doing so you miss out on a lot. That is just my stance though. Yours is with science, however you respect other peoples' opinions and beliefs and for that I am not only greatful, but have respect for you as well. :Cool:  

Doc  :Wavey:

----------


## Pachipro

> If you would read some scientific articles about neuroscience once in a while (instead of "paranormal literature") you'd know.


This may be out of context, but you are correct. I could (and do) read quite a few scientific articles on all subjects, but they are just telling me what they already know and have "proved" and want me to believe hook, line, and sinker without question. If most people did that we would still be back in the dark ages where the "scientific" and religious thinking of the day was that the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, god created the earth and humans in 7 days, that the earth is only 6,000 or so years old, and anyone who washes their hands before surgery is 'mad'. And anyone who thought otherwise or questioned current beliefs could be arrested, ostracized, and/or burned at the stake.

It's paranormal literature from some pretty brave doctors and scientists that choose to live "outside the box", so to speak, of conventional wisdom, beliefs, and thinkings that give us the advancements in science, medicine and technology we have today. They choose to stick by their findings even though they may be ostracized by their peers for questioning and going beyond current thinking. And that's what I choose to mostly read if there are facts and research to back up their claims.

*Case in point:* Back in the 80's a couple of scientists from Australia (Drs. Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren proved that the majority of ulcers were caused by bacteria in the stomach, not by stress or spicy foods as the medical establishment so _'firmly'_ stated was the truth and fact. For years their findings were disdained and ignored, by the AMA, JAMA, and doctors and hospitals around the world and they were laughed at and ridiculed. Much like I am for my beliefs which are mostly based on documented fact. Not until the mid to late 1990's did the medical establishment around the world have to eat their words and claim that they were right in that most peptic ulcers, among others, could be quickly cured by a simple antibiotic. No more need for the endless consumption of antacids, bland foods, and milk and constant visits to the doctor for prescriptions. They finally received the Nobel Prize in medicine this year for their findings. :Cool:  

When I read about this and read their research in the late 80's, I mentioned it to everybody and I was looked at with a raised eyebrow, much like the Mr. Spock in your avatar. No one believed me, not even my best friend who was a doctor! "Impossible", he said. "We know what causes ulcers and it is not bacteria." When my mother came down with stomach ulcers in the mid 90's I mentioned this to her and she finally got a prescription from her doctor for an antibiotic after much prodding on her part. And within a week her ulcer was gone! Her doctor couldn't believe it and he called me to ask where I got my information after my mother told him where she got her info. I mentioned the doctors' names and he did the research and started prescribing antibiotics for stomach ulcers. He became kind of famous in the neighborhood as the doctor who could cure ulcers.

Now had I, and others like me, not read paranormal literature, these doctors' findings may have never been acknowledged. And a simple cure for a common ailment may never have been found. 

Now who do you think lost by this acknowledgement and who do you think tried to squash these findings? The billion, yes billion, dollar a year antacid industry and doctors and hospitals who prescribe expensive drugs like tagamint that's who! Because if you aint sick, they make no money. If they can't prescribe a drug they make no money. It WAS NOT in their best (greedy) interest to acknowledge these two doctors' findings as billions would be lost, and were. But because of people like myself who read paranormal literature and the research to back it up and spread the word that findings like this are FINALLY acknowledged and accepted.

As Steve Forbes, Editor-In-Chief of Forbes magazine said last month in an article concerning this nobel prize, 


> "The lesson here can never be stressed enough: In business, medicine, and elsewhere, great breakthroughs very often come from outsiders, entrepreneurial folk not part of the establishment, of "mainstream" thought. Railroad companies didn't invent the automobile; traditional filmmakers didn't create videotape or DVD's; telephone companies long underestimated the "creatively destructive" impact of the Internet.....The federal government plays a massive role in funding medical research. Is there a connection between that fact and the frustratingly slow progress in conquering cancer's many variations?....With more money available to be invested in research, inventors and entrepreneurs would be better able to create products and services that challenge established ones-or create whole new catagories altogether.


In concluding, do you honestly believe that the medical and pharmaceutical industry wants to find a cure for cancer with their billions in grants and donations and their fees for the deadly chemo and radiation? Not on your life. It would be detrimental to their best interests as they make approximately US$360,000 from a typical cancer patient! 

And also, in keeping with the topic of this thread, does anyone think the religious, medical, governmental institutions will ever acknowledge the fact that the conciousness does survive the death of the physical body with all the documented case histories out there? What would happen to this world if the general population believed and was taught about karma, and do unto others as you would have done unto you, as you are coming back? I think the world would be a safer, better place to live in without war and poverty and disease and such as is so prevelant today.

Another area of research that will probably be acknowledged in the near future: One teaspoon of cayanne pepper mixed with tomato or vegetable juice daily, will begin to uncolg arteries going to the heart. If this is proven true (which will probably happen) there will be no more need for useless bypass surgeries except in the most extreme cases. Now do you think the doctors and hospitals want this info to become common knowledge? Not on your life. When you're sick they make money. When you're healthy they don't. Now which do you think they would prefer?

*ducks blows that are coming his way*  :Boxing:

----------


## Tsuyoiko

Hi Pachipro  :Wavey:  

Have you read _The Borderlands of Science_ by Michael Shermer? In that book he distinguishes three levels - non-science (paranormal), borderlands science and normal science. In normal science fits anything that is supported by the balance of evidence - evolution, continental drift, gravity, etc. Non-science is the realm of claims that have either been disproven or cannot be tested scientifically - psychoanalysis, creationism, astrology. The interesting bit is in between, on the borderlands. Here are hypotheses that are being tested, but for which there is not yet enough evidence for them to be promoted to theories - such as superstrings, acupuncture, cryonics.

I don't think the ulcer cure was ever non-science - I'm sure the doctors who discovered it had good evidence to support their findings, and it was the closed-mindedness of the conventional doctors that prevented its acceptance. It has now moved from the borderlands into normal science.

I am totally in agreement when you say that it is not in the interests of pharmaceutical companies to cure everyone. I am very dubious of convention medicine, and like you, I expect to see many folk remedies making their way into normal medicine. I have just found a 'miracle cure' for my eczema, after 20 years of steroid creams that have only made it worse - tea tree oil. I have used it in a cream for two weeks and my eczema has gone. But the pharmaceutical companies aren't going to make much from a tube of cream costing GBP4 are they?  :Okashii:

----------


## bossel

> they are just telling me what they already know and have "proved" and want me to believe hook, line, and sinker without question.


They do? Maybe you're not really reading scientific magazines, but popular scientific ones? There is a difference. I don't know about the US, but in Germany there is a huge difference between eg PM & Spektrum der Wissenschaft. Both could be considered popular (even Spektrum is not really scientific), but PM would be what could cause your comment above, it's kind of a science tabloid.




> It's paranormal literature from some pretty brave doctors and scientists that choose to live "outside the box", so to speak, of conventional wisdom, beliefs, and thinkings that give us the advancements in science, medicine and technology we have today.


Yeah, right.




> *Case in point:* Back in the 80's a couple of scientists from Australia (Drs. Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren proved that the majority of ulcers were caused by bacteria in the stomach, not by stress or spicy foods as the medical establishment so _'firmly'_ stated was the truth and fact. For years their findings were disdained and ignored, by the AMA, JAMA, and doctors and hospitals around the world and they were laughed at and ridiculed.


Bad "case in point." They didn't live "outside the box", both worked at the Royal Perth Hospital in the 1980s, from 1986 onwards Marshall was research fellow and Professor of Medicine at the University of Virginia.

In 1985 Marshall was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) to determine the effect of antibiotics on peptic ulcer relapse.




> Not until the mid to late 1990's did the medical establishment around the world have to eat their words and claim that they were right in that most peptic ulcers, among others, could be quickly cured by a simple antibiotic.


Er..., sorry, but medical research in the late 80s was still on-going. It's pretty normal for any medical treatment to be researched for years, if not decades.




> "Impossible", he said. "We know what causes ulcers and it is not bacteria."


Which only shows that your doctor did _not_ read scientific magazines. I know for sure that New Scientist (also rather popular, though) had an article in 1989 about research in that regard.




> Now had I, and others like me, not read paranormal literature


NS is paranormal literature?




> But because of people like myself who read paranormal literature and the research to back it up and spread the word that findings like this are FINALLY acknowledged and accepted.


You overestimate your influence.




> In concluding, do you honestly believe that the medical and pharmaceutical industry wants to find a cure for cancer with their billions in grants and donations and their fees for the deadly chemo and radiation? Not on your life. It would be detrimental to their best interests as they make approximately US$360,000 from a typical cancer patient!


Luckily, medical research (at least in Europe) doesn't rely solely on the industry.




> And also, in keeping with the topic of this thread, does anyone think the religious, medical, governmental institutions will ever acknowledge the fact that the conciousness does survive the death of the physical body with all the documented case histories out there?


What would they lose?




> What would happen to this world if the general population believed and was taught about karma, and do unto others as you would have done unto you, as you are coming back?


Isn't that what the general population believed for quite a while now (several millennia)?




> I think the world would be a safer, better place to live in without war and poverty and disease and such as is so prevelant today.


Ah, yes, imagination at work.




> *ducks blows that are coming his way*


Blows? Funny enough, I don't believe in an after life, or such. Yet, I'm more peaceful than many who do.

----------


## Pachipro

> I don't think the ulcer cure was ever non-science - I'm sure the doctors who discovered it had good evidence to support their findings, and it was the closed-mindedness of the conventional doctors that prevented its acceptance. It has now moved from the borderlands into normal science.


Maybe I should've us the word "alternative" instead of paranormal. Like in alternative medicine or alternative science. Paranormal, "outside the ordinary or normal", sounds a little too SciFi and maybe didn't really get across what I ment. The _Borderlands of Science_ sounds like and interesting book. Thanks for mentioning it.




> But the pharmaceutical companies aren't going to make much from a tube of cream costing GBP4 are they?


You are right about that. They can't patent a natural occuring substance so they choose to ignore the findings concerned with it. Instead they invest millions in a synthetic treatment of symptoms only, that they can patent, have doctors supply it by prescription, and then charge a fortune for it. Oh yeah and the treatment usually comes with one or more side effects.

----------


## Kinsao

I haven't the time or the brain (by a long way!) to respond to every single point that people have been making... which are all interesting. But there's one thing which seems to underlie, that I'd like to clarify...

Science is treated as 'fact'; i.e. provable and disprovable. The paranormal is not 'fact' and by its very nature can't be proved (this doesn't always mean it has to conflict with science - nor am I saying that paranormal theories are necessarily 'untrue', just that they aren't provable, which is different). 

I _think_ that one of the key points of Pachipro's argument is that people believe in the truth of science, because of this idea that science is proven, but in fact, when you look at science throughout history, it is full of theories and ideas that have been generally accepted as true, and then disproved later on when more knowledge comes to light. (Or even, better technology to make further discovery possible.) Obviously we are now reached further in scientific understanding than ever before, but still it would be arrogant to think that we have reached the pinnacle and stopped discovering. It is a continuous process and the chances are that humans in 15367 (if the human race does last that long!) will view our 'science' in much the same way as we now view the 'science' of the original flat-earthers. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is, not to put down science, which is truly incredible (not to mention fascinating), and a lot of factual knowledge which is known and proved, but... I don't put a lot of credence to paranormal phenomena and I am the type that looks to find the 'scientific explanation' (for example for NDEs)... but... I am trying to say the old chestnut, that science doesn't have all the answers. I think that's what Pachipro is explaining.  :Clueless: 

So let's say, I don't believe in paranormal phenomena; I do believe in life (or, should I say, existance of some incomprehensible sort) after death and I also believe that maybe, one day, we will be advanced enough to 'prove' it the scientific way.  :Smiling:

----------


## Pachipro

> Er..., sorry, but medical research in the late 80s was still on-going. It's pretty normal for any medical treatment to be researched for years, if not decades.


Yes, but why is that when a natural cure, that cannot be patented, or a simple one like this, and is outside the box of conventional thinking and wisdom, does the establishment choose to ignore it or say that more reasearch is needed when it has already proved itself? Why must something like this take years when people are already being helped by it?




> You overestimate your influence.


I have absolutely no influence whatsoever. I just say what I have read if there is documented proof or more than one experience to back it up. Then it is up to others to decide for themselves. If people choose to research it for themselves and they are swayed, then maybe, yes, I did have influence. But if no one talks about it, no one will ever find out about alternatives to conventional thinking and practices. 

Read _Racketeering in Medicine_, by Dr. James Carter, or _The Medical Mafia_, by Guylaine Lanctot, a former French-Canadian doctor who lost her medical license for life after her book was published, or _Reclaiming Our Health_, by John Robbins, heir to the Baskin Robbins Ice Cream Chain. These people, two doctors and one layman, offer documented proof on how the AMA and such go after their members who do not walk the party line or who tout the benefits of alternative, much less expensive forms of treatments.




> Quote:
> And also, in keeping with the topic of this thread, does anyone think the religious, medical, governmental institutions will ever acknowledge the fact that the conciousness does survive the death of the physical body with all the documented case histories out there?
> 
> 
> What would they lose?


Control and influence of the masses.




> Quote:
> What would happen to this world if the general population believed and was taught about karma, and do unto others as you would have done unto you, as you are coming back?
> 
> 
> Isn't that what the general population believed for quite a while now (several millennia)?


Most people do not believe in reincarnation including yourself.

The truth is that no one individual will ever know, or can say for sure, that there is life after death, or that humans have a soul seperate from the body, or that reincarnation is fact or fancy. Each one will decide for themselves regardless of what I or others say. All I can do is relate my experiences and relate how they have changed my thinking over the years from being a devout christian, blindly believing the bible and such, to one where I am constantly questioning conventional wisdom and beliefs.

----------


## bossel

> Yes, but why [...] does the establishment choose to ignore it or say that more reasearch is needed when it has already proved itself?


The establishment has something to lose: power & influence. But there is more to medical science than the establishment.
Proved itself? By what? Because people used some "medication" for thousands of years? That's not much of a proof. It only proves that the "medication" isn't deadly enough to hinder believers from procreation.




> Why must something like this take years when people are already being helped by it?


You see, that's actually the question: does it help or is it simply some placebo effect?




> I just say what I have read if there is documented proof or more than one experience to back it up.


If there is documented proof which can be repeated in independent research, there shouldn't be much of a problem regarding scientific approval. Personal experience doesn't say very much, experience is much too subjective.




> Control and influence of the masses.


You mean like what religion & other spiritual nonsense is used for?




> Most people do not believe in reincarnation including yourself.


Er...? Sorry, but I understood your mentioning of karma in a more general sense, as what you stated in your sentence relates to more than one religious doctrine (do unto others as you would have done unto you). I missed the part about "coming back."

But my point still stands, since a majority of the world's population (well, at least on the Northern half) believed in some kind of religion where "do onto others..." in one form or another was part of the doctrine.




> The truth is that no one individual will ever know, or can say for sure, that there is life after death, or that humans have a soul seperate from the body, or that reincarnation is fact or fancy.


Wrong. Fact is that we don't know yet with absolute certainty that there is no such stuff. Unless you can look into future (which I doubt, but maybe you have your individual truth here as well) you don't know if we'll ever know.
Available evidence points very definitely in the direction of there being no soul, life after death (or maybe "It's life, Jim, but not as we know it...") or reincarnation.




> I am constantly questioning conventional wisdom and beliefs.


Convention is in the eye of the beholder. Your beliefs are rather conventional in some parts of the world.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> You see, that's actually the question: does it help or is it simply some placebo effect?


Actually placebos can help. I don't think it matters that they are not working 'clinically', if that is the right word. If they make someone feel better they are a valid treatment, IMO - provided of course that the patient is monitored properly. In _The Undiscovered Mind_, John Horton talks about various treatments for mental illness, and he puts a good case that drugs, psychotherapy and placebos are equally effective. He suggests that even many drugs work partly through placebo effect - for example, doctors prescribe serotonin re-uptake inhibitors for depression, without actually measuring serotonin levels in the brain. So for some people it may be placebo effect that makes them work - and we won't know until doctors start testing for the neurotransmitter and analysing the results.

----------


## Kama

Bossel, what makes placebo for you? Non-drugs? Could you tell me, what you see as a placebo?

----------


## bossel

> Actually placebos can help.


Yes, that's what I meant: the placebo effect. But it's not the placebos that have an effect on your illness, it's your own body at work. Placebos only help in focusing your body's resources.





> If they make someone feel better they are a valid treatment, IMO


The problem is that they don't work on a sufficiently reliable basis. But if all else fails, they may be an option.




> John Horton talks about various treatments for mental illness, and he puts a good case that drugs, psychotherapy and placebos are equally effective.


Don't know John Horton & though I doubt that they are "_equally_ effective," this actually makes sense. The effects of placebos are largely psychologically, anyway.






> Bossel, what makes placebo for you? Non-drugs? Could you tell me, what you see as a placebo?


Placebos, if I'm not mistaken, are simply fake drugs (non-drugs, if you like) with no active/effective ingredient, eg. nice, shiny pills made from starch.

----------


## Kama

So, water from health resort is placebo or not? Spoon of salt as an emetic is placebo? 

Your definition, I believe, exclude natural medicine from placebo effect. So why not instead of drugs doctors sometimes could prescribe "natural drugs". It's safer for the people, I believe. Drugs (for example antibiotics or painkillers) aren't so good always. They are addictive, and with time you have to take more and more because your body has been so used to this it won't work until you take more of this.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> So, water from health resort is placebo or not? Spoon of salt as an emetic is placebo?


I don't think we can say with certainty how these things work - it is probably a combination of clinical effect and placebo effect, but without proper clinical studies we can't say - it's not enough to rely on anecdotal evidence, although if someone says they feel better, good for them. I know that peppermint tea cures indigestion and that lemon and ginger tea with honey stops a cold coming on, but only because I have tried it and it works for me.

----------


## bossel

> So, water from health resort is placebo or not? Spoon of salt as an emetic is placebo? 
> 
> Your definition, I believe, exclude natural medicine from placebo effect.


You have to differentiate between placebo & placebo effect. Placebo effect is possible with pretty much everything there is, from "healthy" water to banging your head against the wall.

If the spoon of salt you mentioned actually causes throwing up, then it's no placebo (but I never heard that you throw up from a spoon of salt, won't try it, though).





> I know that peppermint tea cures indigestion and that lemon and ginger tea with honey stops a cold coming on, but only because I have tried it and it works for me.


For my girlfriend this would be ginger broth, which doesn't help me. I can do with a lot of sleep. Works best (for me).

----------


## Kinsao

I agree with Tsuyoiko, if something works for a person, it doesn't matter whether or not it's placebo effect. Of course, that depends on the person... but if it is making them feel better, that's fine.  :Smiling: 




> ... or _Reclaiming Our Health_, by John Robbins, heir to the Baskin Robbins Ice Cream Chain.


Sorry, I couldn't resist this one........... is there some hitherto undiscovered health-giving power of ice cream, that has lain unnoticed by conventional medical professionals for all these years? I would like to think so.....  :Hihi:  It sounds like another layer of meaning there....

----------


## lost

Do you believe in life after death? -yes to all of the above except for death after life.

it's weird but in my religion...when a person die, the dead person becomes 7 souls...one wonders in the human world, lost (not me), one goes to the place where that person have lived or love it with all his or her heart and soul, one goes to hell another goes to heaven, one reincarnates and so on. that's what my parents and grandma told me and i believe in it. it really makes since when i connect all the dots on how my religion works. spirits of our ancestors always will be with us. But they are also reborned and there are proofs...which it's complacated to explain...i need more time...but anyways, it's like a person have done good and bad during their life time. therefore, the bad side of the person goes to hell and gets torture as the good side goes to heaven and do whatever. 

i think it really depends on what you really believe in...and basically that is what you will end up after death.

in some part of china...there is the believe that after a person dies...the spirit had to climb up a very high mountain and drink some kind of water, which erases the memories of that life and then the person reincarnates.

i just wanna share this wit you guys...

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> in some part of china...there is the believe that after a person dies...the spirit had to climb up a very high mountain and drink some kind of water, which erases the memories of that life and then the person reincarnates.


They had a similar belief in ancient Greece too - the soul would drink the waters of the River Lethe and forget everything that had happened during its life.

----------


## belle74311

I just wanted to say that there is DEFINATELY life after death. Just because we can't comprehend it or don't want to believe in it doesn't mean it's not going to happen.

You guys have to look at the big picture here. Everyone is born into life and every single person will go through death. Earth is a temporary place...we will not be here forever and no one can decide not to die and stay here forever. 

It's easy to not think too much about it because it's the "unknown", but come on guys...this is YOUR life here. Don't you think it deserves a more serious thought and research?

I don't get it..why is it that people take such good care of their bodies by going to the gym, a yearly doctor's checkup, eating healthy and all that, but COMPLETELY ignore their souls? 

No one can deny that life is temporary, and i'm sorry but it's such a thoughtless idea to believe if after ALL this that there was no purpose for it. After billions of people have lived and existed on this earth, fought wars and a constant battle b/t good and evil and it was all for nothing. Do you think that a person who murders and rapes and steals is the same as a person who gives charity, takes good care of their family and fights oppresion ???

Hate to break it to you guys but we are going to be accountable for ourselves. After we die, NOTHING will come with us except our deeds. And we are going to have to answer to God when He asks us what we did with our life. Did we waste it? Did we put it to good use? 

Think about it guys...like REALLY think about life..it's worth it.

----------


## bossel

> Don't you think it deserves a more serious thought and research?
> [...]it's such a thoughtless idea to believe if after ALL this that there was no purpose for it. 
> [...]
> And we are going to have to answer to God when He asks us what we did with our life.


_You_ talk of thoughtlessness? How much thought did you put into biblical logic? How much thought made you believe in this particular religion instead of hundreds of others which offer you consolation?
Taking your ideas from some ages-old book & then accusing those who don't do the same of being thoughtless is quite strange.




> After billions of people have lived and existed on this earth, fought wars and a constant battle b/t good and evil and it was all for nothing.


Ah, you see, if all those idiots who died fighting for their belief had thought instead, "Oh, this is the only life I have. Why should I fight & die for some silly idea?", maybe there would have been less fighting & dying.




> Do you think that a person who murders and rapes and steals is the same as a person who gives charity, takes good care of their family and fights oppresion ???


Actually, you can find people who combine all this.

----------


## belle74311

bossel, it is absolutely thoughtless to think after you die it just ends. I mean what kind of thought is put into that exactly? Where's the logic coming from? Can you prove it?

How much thought did i put into biblical logic? #1 i'm not Christian so I don't go by biblical logic. I have looked at all sorts of religions...and I chose the one that made perfect sense. The complete truth, not 1/2 truths. Anyone with common sense and a desire to know the truth, by God's will, will come to know of it. So how much thought did I put into my belief? Years and years of research, reflecting, comparing with other religions, science, literature and such. And it can be proven as well. But the blind will never see and the deaf will never hear. 

As for your comment about people's reasons for fighting war, everyone had a different one. My point is that tremendous things have happened in our history and still continue to happen. And there are signs for those who reflect.

Absolutely you can find people who combine all the things i mentioned. I don't doubt that, but that simply wasn't my question.

----------


## bossel

> it is absolutely thoughtless to think


Aha! Now I see where you're coming from. Not really a surprise, actually.




> I mean what kind of thought is put into that exactly? Where's the logic coming from? Can you prove it?


Scientific thought.
Science & my brain.
Nope, can you prove your point?

Did you actually read this thread? If so, why ask these questions?




> #1 i'm not Christian so I don't go by biblical logic.


You sure sound like a Christian, but sorry for assuming.




> and I chose the one that made perfect sense. The complete truth, not 1/2 truths. Anyone with common sense and a desire to know the truth, by God's will, will come to know of it.


Hmm, isn't that what all those religions claim? The complete, 1 & only truth.




> And it can be proven as well.


Proven by belief?




> Absolutely you can find people who combine all the things i mentioned. I don't doubt that, but that simply wasn't my question.


Your question was


> Do you think that a person who murders and rapes and steals is the same as a person who gives charity, takes good care of their family and fights oppresion ???


Since it can be (& is, in a number of cases) the very same person, your question is answered.

----------


## belle74311

bossel,

I'm not here to convince you or fight you. I have my point of view and you have the right to have yours. My belief can it be proven? Absolutely. But you will have to be a very patient person if you want to see the proof. I can't just type it up in one page the things that I have learned in years!

All religions claim to be the truth, I agree with you. This is the part where you have to really put your effort into research. Humans are very smart beings, we are capable of understanding what makes sense and what doesn't. BUT if you cover your eye and you say I can't see, this is not the fault of the religion. If you cover your ears and say I can't hear, you're the only one to blame for it. 

And it seems as though it's a very simple question you just don't want to answer. It's a rhetorical question anyway...i wasn't expecting anyone to actually answer it. It's just to think about. 

People tend to think that science and religion are at opposite ends. They are very much together. The only time science and religion does not agree is only when scienctists make a mistake...as it has been done so many times in the past. And as we know...science is ever changing and only some things are a definite like the earth is a sphere and it orbits around the sun. (Which is written in my religion over 1400 years ago) People used to believe that the earth was flat, that the sun orbitted around the earth, that the earth does not move. So at what point do you determine what scientists claim to be the truth? Becaues this takes place even now. So do you just take their word for it? I mean i'm trying to undersand where you are coming from. 

And there are so many scientists/doctors out there that get their information from religious sources! Glory be to God! We can not surpass God's knowledge.

----------


## Kama

May I ask what is your religion? You sound for me like a missionary, or fighter of God. That is a wrong way to discuss with people. 

You say there is a life after death. What it looks like?

Also, I think that religion is different from science in 2 very important points:

1. You have to believe in what your religion says. For example: If I am a Christian, I believe that Mary was virgin when she give birth to Jesus. If I am a Muslim, I believe that Koran was sent by God via Jibril to the Prophet. etc. Sure, people do have mind and can see (for example) that God sent exact rules how divide the assets after a person's death etc. Strange, isn't it?  :Laughing: 

2. Two different people will see something very different. Religion is something that is different depending on a person who looks at her. Religion and believes are highly individual. It doesn't make her false. Just everybody has it's own truth. 

I was born into Christian family, but I do not look at myself as a Christian. I was interested in world religions since I can remember. I have read about different religions, beliefs, at studies I studied it more closely. I have my mind and I think for myself. I don't like "when you were hit on cheek..." etc. I follow Christians rituals like: Easter, Christmas, just like Japanese go on a matsuri. I do not fast. My religion doesn't require me to do so. 

Yes, my religion. It is something I believe in. I have MADE it to suit me, and I don't see a need to change it, since when I decided on it. My religion is combined of JudeoChristianity, AssyroBabilonian, Satanism, Animism, Buddhism, Magic, and my own thoughts... When somebody asks me what I believe in I say: Animism. 

We can't surpass God's knowledge? But we can use it.  :Laughing:

----------


## Kinsao

> Also, I think that religion is different from science in 2 very important points:
> 
> 1. You have to believe in what your religion says. For example: If I am a Christian, I believe that Mary was virgin when she give birth to Jesus.


Actually, it is scientifically possible for an egg cell to begin to divide in such a way although unfertilised by sperm cell. This has been _rarely_ observed in some cases (human).

I'm not saying that to make a pro-religion argument or something - just as a fact.

I think it is true that religion and science do not have to be far apart. Science is about discovering how things work, and that's not in any way incompatible with a belief in a god. Where they come into opposition is when religious tradition insists on maintaining as fact a superstition which has been disproved by science.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> My belief can it be proven? Absolutely. But you will have to be a very patient person if you want to see the proof. I can't just type it up in one page the things that I have learned in years!


The word 'proof' has many different meanings - you are referring to proof as in "The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true". Scientific proof is "The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions". Just because the two ideas are expressed using the same word doesn't make them the same. You might just convince me if you could prove it in the second sense, but I highly doubt the first sense will convince me - I have seen the 'evidence' and the 'arguments' and I don't accept them.


> BUT if you cover your eye and you say I can't see, this is not the fault of the religion. If you cover your ears and say I can't hear, you're the only one to blame for it.


How many religious people have their eyes and ears wide open, ready to receive the evidence that what they believe might have no grounding in fact?


> The only time science and religion does not agree is only when scienctists make a mistake...as it has been done so many times in the past.


So when Galileo was imprisoned, it was because science was mistaken? Was Scopes put on trial because Darwin was wrong?


> And as we know...science is ever changing and only some things are a definite like the earth is a sphere and it orbits around the sun.


And that species evolve, that continents drift, that genes are responsible for inheritance, that the sun is a nuclear reactor, that there are holes in the ozone layer...


> People used to believe that the earth was flat


There are only two people on record who ever believed this - and both of them were Christians.


> So at what point do you determine what scientists claim to be the truth? Becaues this takes place even now. So do you just take their word for it?


When the theory explains more of the evidence than any other explanation we should accept it. With each new discovery that scientists make, we have to abandon less of what we believed before. This suggests that we are edging towards an accurate picture of the universe - although there is still a lot to be learnt. 


> And there are so many scientists/doctors out there that get their information from religious sources!


Do you have any examples?

----------


## Doc

> I was born into Christian family, but I do not look at myself as a Christian. I was interested in world religions since I can remember. I have read about different religions, beliefs, at studies I studied it more closely. I have my mind and I think for myself. I don't like "when you were hit on cheek..." etc. I follow Christians rituals like: Easter, Christmas, just like Japanese go on a matsuri. I do not fast. My religion doesn't require me to do so. 
> 
> Yes, my religion. It is something I believe in. I have MADE it to suit me, and I don't see a need to change it, since when I decided on it. My religion is combined of JudeoChristianity, AssyroBabilonian, Satanism, Animism, Buddhism, Magic, and my own thoughts... When somebody asks me what I believe in I say: Animism.


You mean anime is a religion for you?!  :Shocked:  

Just kidding! :Giggle:  

Over 80% of the United States population is in the Christian faith. The moral majority of that 80% would not find you having your own religion to be offensive, evil, or pagan in any way, shape, or form. It is only the fundamentalists were I live that may have a problem. Luckly they only make up about 5-10% of the total Christian population in the United States. So unless you come to a small town filled with them you really do not have to worry about any percecution about having your own religious faith to fit you. :Smiling:  




> We can't surpass God's knowledge? But we can use it.


Like what is the meaning of life type knowledge?  :Giggle:  Sorry I couldn't pass that one up!  :Smiling: 

Doc  :Wavey:

----------


## bossel

I think, Tsuyoiko has answered your post very well, hence only some short points.




> And it seems as though it's a very simple question you just don't want to answer.


Which question exactly?




> The only time science and religion does not agree is only when scienctists make a mistake


Good to know. If religion is never mistaken, why are there so many different ones?




> People used to believe that the earth was flat, that the sun orbitted around the earth, that the earth does not move. So at what point do you determine what scientists claim to be the truth?


Point being: "People used to believe"
At what point did scientists claim the above?




> So do you just take their word for it?


The good thing is that contrary to many religions you don't have to take "their" word for it. Science is open to new findings if those can be independently validated.






> Actually, it is scientifically possible for an egg cell to begin to divide in such a way although unfertilised by sperm cell. This has been _rarely_ observed in some cases (human).


Really, AFAIK the sperm contains a significant thingy called centrisome without which the egg won't be able to organise its growth properly. Do you have any examples?

Anyway, you don't need such a "miracle". It's possible to have sexual intercourse without hurting the hymen. Or you can have sex without penetration, but the sperm enters the vagina.

----------


## lastmagi

> People tend to think that science and religion are at opposite ends. They are very much together.


How so?




> So at what point do you determine what scientists claim to be the truth? Becaues this takes place even now. So do you just take their word for it? I mean i'm trying to undersand where you are coming from.


Have you ever looked at any scientific literature? They have a very precise way of going about their experiments, including a discussion on methodology, results, interpretations, etc. It's not simply a matter of taking their word for it, but of the reader being able to see for himself or herself that one thing leads to the next through deductive/inductive reasoning.




> And there are so many scientists/doctors out there that get their information from religious sources! Glory be to God! We can not surpass God's knowledge.


Examples would be nice.

----------


## Smertrius

I'm an atheist and i believe that there's nothing after life. However I believe in ghosts and mediums, but the way i see it is something like an echo of an event that happened and is still resounding in the "haunted" place, and which mediums are able to perceive. I cannot explain it but i believe that some places keep the memory of their past.

----------


## Mars Man

I'll post here, if I may, simply for the reason of superb random occurrence. I got a notice in my e-mail box of this above addition to this long dead thread--an event which has never happened (notice of a posting to a thread which I had posted in earlier from this forum), and being moved by such extreme rareness, have decided to respond. 

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, *Smertrius*, on the matter of having read the major posts in this thread, and then, will ask to you to firstly define/describe your terms a little more. The word '_ghost_' usually refers to an immaterial portion which is the said 'real being,' which survives death (i.e. never dies). In your presentation, therefore, you are saying the same, it seems, but simply postulating that such is simply an '_echo_' from past energy arrays/constructs. Is this correct, or does my understanding need adjustment?

----------


## Shasta

Of late i have found myself, every once in awhile, watching one of those ghost hunting shows. In America it seems every broadcast channel has a spirit searching group that TV cameras follow. I call it my religion shows. Can't say I've learned anything. Most of the time I become annoyed at what the guys and gals do. Why do they turn off the lights!? Now that they found "evidence", why don't they go back to that location over and over for more proof!? Obviously, if the "ghost scientists" ever found conclusive life after death evidence it would be earth shattering news. 

What ever the answer, I figure the male jihadist has the sweetest after life deal of receiving 72 virgins. Religious scriptures have been known to make translation errors though. A 72 year old virgin wouldn't be so good.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

I believe in metempsychosis or soul transmigration.

----------


## LeBrok

> Of late i have found myself, every once in awhile, watching one of those ghost hunting shows. In America it seems every broadcast channel has a spirit searching group that TV cameras follow. I call it my religion shows. Can't say I've learned anything. Most of the time I become annoyed at what the guys and gals do. Why do they turn off the lights!? Now that they found "evidence", why don't they go back to that location over and over for more proof!? Obviously, if the "ghost scientists" ever found conclusive life after death evidence it would be earth shattering news. 
> 
> What ever the answer, I figure the male jihadist has the sweetest after life deal of receiving 72 virgins. Religious scriptures have been known to make translation errors though. A 72 year old virgin wouldn't be so good.


Lol, I would go for 72 prostitutes, more fun and learning.


I don't believe in anything, not even one ghost or sole out there. 
I'm also hoping that I'm wrong.

----------


## Smertrius

> I'll post here, if I may, simply for the reason of superb random occurrence. I got a notice in my e-mail box of this above addition to this long dead thread--an event which has never happened (notice of a posting to a thread which I had posted in earlier from this forum), and being moved by such extreme rareness, have decided to respond. 
> I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, *Smertrius*, on the matter of having read the major posts in this thread, and then, will ask to you to firstly define/describe your terms a little more. The word '_ghost_' usually refers to an immaterial portion which is the said 'real being,' which survives death (i.e. never dies). In your presentation, therefore, you are saying the same, it seems, but simply postulating that such is simply an '_echo_' from past energy arrays/constructs. Is this correct, or does my understanding need adjustment?


I just answered the poll and gave my opinion, i didn't read the hundred posts of that thread.
I don't believe in the concept of soul or immaterial being that keeps on living after the death. I just think that some event can imprint the place in which they took place and be perceived like an echo of the past by these peoples we call mediums.

----------


## Mars Man

Thanks for your honest response, *Smertrius*; I appreciate that. I would tend to think, after pondering a little on the usually processes of '_mediums_' and what they say and do, that we might have some trouble demonstrating the 'echo of history past' hypothesis. The main point being that, in that we would most likely have to hold an historical event as having a fixed pattern, there would hardly be any possibility of convergence with present events, names, knowledge--_which (unless I am very wrong) is often enough what mediums tend to tell us?_ 

Do you have an developed explanation of just what an 'echo' may be? That might be nice to hear. 


*Cambria Red*, I have never heard of '_metempsychosis_,' though I can basically grasp the likely concept behind '_soul transmigration_.' Here, I would feel compelled to ask, is what might be a part of a 'soul,' or, what make-up is it that is a 'soul?' Also, what might be the difference between this and our general reincarnation concept?

----------


## Gwyllgi

I’m minded of an old limerick from my youth …

_“We start out as somebody’s sperms,_
_We end being eaten by worms,_
_The bit in-between?_
_Short, nasty, and mean,_
_And full of diseases and germs!”_

----------


## LeBrok

Life on Earth is one big recycling bin.

Lol, nice limerick Gwyllgi.

----------


## Mars Man

That is very much the case, *LeBrok*. On our larger, yet pragmatically limited level of analysis, the earth is one big recycle machine--from materials of earth (as in soil) to the plant life, to the animal life (bottom of food chain to the top), to materials of earth (as in soil), to further rearrangements. The H2O pretty much keeps its bonds, as far as I know, and simply has moved about between bodies of water to bodies of living things (as in the average 57% of the adult body weight) over the some near 4.5 billion years. 

However, such _IS_ the life that is after death--_not of the particular build of brain that we ascribe to an individual, which, upon death is recycled into materials of earth_. Yes, I agree, a nice little poem to keep in mind there.

----------


## Smertrius

> Do you have an developed explanation of just what an 'echo' may be? That might be nice to hear.


Roughly, i think that places or objects can be "charged" by strong emotions experienced by peoples, and that those "charges" keep resounding like an echo that mediums perceive when they talk about their "visions".

----------


## LeBrok

Do you realise how many millions of people were in certain places, not mentioning billions of animals and their emotions. You would pick up at least thousands if not billions of "charges" at once. You wouldn't be able to differentiate them, it would look like a static on TV....and completely useless, not mentioning impossible.

----------


## Smertrius

Yes I do realise it. 
But what I do realise too, is that there are strange phenomenas that do happen; I personally never saw any ghost but I know someone who had have premonitory dreams, that's another topic, I know, but what I mean is that there must be explications to these paranormal phenomenas and that's the best explication I see in the case of ghosts.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Thanks for your honest response, *Smertrius*; I appreciate that. I would tend to think, after pondering a little on the usually processes of '_mediums_' and what they say and do, that we might have some trouble demonstrating the 'echo of history past' hypothesis. The main point being that, in that we would most likely have to hold an historical event as having a fixed pattern, there would hardly be any possibility of convergence with present events, names, knowledge--_which (unless I am very wrong) is often enough what mediums tend to tell us?_ 
> Do you have an developed explanation of just what an 'echo' may be? That might be nice to hear. 
> *Cambria Red*, I have never heard of '_metempsychosis_,' though I can basically grasp the likely concept behind '_soul transmigration_.' Here, I would feel compelled to ask, is what might be a part of a 'soul,' or, what make-up is it that is a 'soul?' Also, what might be the difference between this and our general reincarnation concept?


Metempsychosis is pretty much the equivalent of soul transmigration. The term is perhaps an extension and refinement of Shopenhauer's notion of "will" primacy. 

My interpretation of metempsychosis is that it involves the transfer of consciousness energy from an expired person to a newly born one. The new consciousness, however, is a _tabula rasa_ devoid of influences from the old consciousness.

----------


## LeBrok

There are more people now than ever, therefore there are not enough old souls to go around. Who creates new souls? Who decides who gets new soul or used one? If they are created from nothing, they might as well dissipate into nothing after death.

----------


## Mars Man

> Metempsychosis is pretty much the equivalent of soul transmigration. The term is perhaps an extension and refinement of Shopenhauer's notion of "will" primacy.


Thanks for getting back with me on that, *Cambria Red*. Now that you mention the 'will' matter, I do seem to have some very, VERY vague recall of having seen some mention of that in the past...but not worthy of saying I actually recall it. 




> My interpretation of metempsychosis is that it involves the transfer of consciousness energy from an expired person to a newly born one. The new consciousness, however, is a _tabula rasa_ devoid of influences from the old consciousness.


Here, I'm afraid, we are going to run into problems with the hypothesis of that line of philosophy. Besides that of the immediately above post, we will surely find that trying to pin a state of having consciousness on energy--so as to allow a transfer of energy to equal a transfer of such a state--is going to be worse than grasping at well greased piglets at the county fair. 

We will find the state of having consciousness as an upper limit above a general 'threshold' of conscious (neuronal activity at large), with various degrees of potential for different brain conditions. We can fully sever the commissures between the left and right hemispheres, and end up with two states of having consciousness (however so unnoticable to the observer, and the patients themselves [in most cases]). 

We will find that we have consciousness content, and that would have to either be transfered along with consciousness--according to that hypothesis, it would seem--or either neatly set aside somehow. I'm not sure of how that'd work. Of course the _Tabla Rasa_ hypothesis has been shown quite inaccurate, along with the _Ghost in the Machine_ hypothesis, so we'd have to test for other avenues in that sense--_and I'd say that neurosciences are doing that now_. 

It would seem to me, therefore, from what you have provided, that the term '_soul_' in that philosophical stance would equate the state of having consciousness. If that is the case, then we're much more evidently looking a biological function which ceases with the breakdown of process. Energy may do whatever it does, quantum processes go on, but the content of having a state of consciousness decomposes--as best can be ascertained with good, empirical, and pragmatically based evidence gathered through the scientific methodology.

----------


## Carlos

The sky exists, I have motives for believing it. Years ago I had a frontal traffic accident, I was going of co-pilot, nothing happened to me, the driver took the worst part. A few hours after the accident it was knocked down in the bed when suddenly a hand that was going out of under the bed was taking possession of me touching all my body, principally pectoral me, of that time I could not move only one muscle of my body, was trying to ask for help my mother and grandmother that they were in the kitchen, but it was useless. In this moment I asked for help with urgency of a way as earlier it had never done it and although it should seem to you incredible a telephone tone entered action, suddenly a low throne cloak appeared, it was empty, it was of a very ancient wood, it was empty and then they began to project one me behind another multitude of slides with paradisiac places, without to be equal it could be the most similar thing to the South American vegetation, water cascades, vegetacción leafy, they were hundreds of images one after other one, there came a moment in which I was already full of so many slide and finally I could move. It neither was asleep it nor was a sleep, for this motive I believe that the sky exists.

----------


## Franco

I don't know if there exists something after death, but it must be the same than there is before birth and conception.

----------


## LeBrok

It's hard for people to imagine "not to be anymore after death". They say "it's impossible not to exist anymore, it's impossible that I won't feel anything or think anything anymore. That your whole personality and mind disappears." It's even hard for me to conceive not remembering anything. 
To imagine how it will be then, let's ask ourselves: "Do we remember anything before our birth?" Well, it's going to be exactly the same after our death."

----------


## Kardu

The question is no matter if there is some kind of existence after death, would our belief or non-belief in afterlife change anything about it?

----------


## Raiden

I find the idea of nothing after death strangely comforting... All in all I believe that we have a set time to do what we must and achieve as much as we can. The world will keep going and in all reality, it won't notice our absence.

----------


## Riccardo

I believe that it will be like before my birth. Do I have idea about it? No. Can someone explain it? No. It will be the same...

----------


## Carlos

> I believe that it will be like before my birth. Do I have idea about it? No. Can someone explain it? No. It will be the same...


I think nobody can explain, it would be more a matter of faith.

----------


## Riccardo

> I think nobody can explain, it would be more a matter of faith.


Well, if you have it. I consider faith something born in the human mind for various reasons, so I can't believe in what they say about "heaven" or "hell". ;)

----------


## Carlos

> Well, if you have it. I consider faith something born in the human mind for various reasons, so I can't believe in what they say about "heaven" or "hell". ;)


Nobody could prove that there exist or not.

----------


## Riccardo

> Nobody could prove that there exist or not.


Exactly like the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It's not a joke, it is a theory. For what I know it is all said by other men into the limits of my life experience, so I don't have any reason to believe that.

----------


## Nugget

"The molecules of your body are the same molecules that make up the nebulae, that burn inside the stars themselves. We are starstuff." DC Fontana

I believe when we die, our energies are released and sent back into the universe. However, I have had some very "interesting" experiences so I can't say that I understand the form or purpose of that released energy.

----------


## Jomid59

No voting option available for me.

"Life" as we know it now, after death.

Hope not.

It has been fun, but........

"Now for something completely different"

----------


## Dianatomia

Let's face it, even though we like to fool ourselves there's no shred of evidence for life after death. But hey, I have no quarrel with all those who like to believe in it. If they - however unlikely -turn out to be right, I'll take it. On the other hand, if there is no hereafter, I guess when my time comes it won't hunt my feelings.

----------


## Mitsuo

I don't believe in life after death. I have been an atheist for awhile now, but looking back on some of my earlier posts (which were almost incoherent) I believed in a deity and considered myself "spiritual".

----------


## James

Sorry to tell you, but when we die, it's over. We become what we were... Stardust.
And that's the only honest truth there is in the world.

Live with it!

----------


## Twilight

I believe in spirits and possibly reincarnation because of a scientific rule, sure our body turns to dust but energy never dies.

----------


## Grubbe

Reincarnation has seemed the most "logic" to me since I was about 15 years old.

----------


## Templar

It seems extremely unlikely. Our sense of existence and self comes from our brains, and once the brain dies; we die as well.

----------


## Tone

I don't know. I don't think there is a heaven. Nor do I believe in reincarnation. I don't believe any sort of afterlife, or spirit, or soul.

Ultimately however, I do believe there is something going on here in life that I can't understand and no theory satisfies. 

Something...

----------


## ebAmerican

Quantum Suicide - I'm a believer in the idea of Schrodinger's cat thought experiment. I'm both alive and dead already. I personally believe I will never see my own death. Other people may see or experience my death, but from my perspective something will happen technologically or otherwise to make me immortal.

----------


## Carlos

We will die all 
Is not it wonderful?

----------

