Page all of 13 12345>Last »
Topic Options
#15051 - 11/28/08 05:37 PM Consciousness and Death
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
I’m certain that discussions about death and the afterlife have come up in other posts, but I would like to find out what people’s perspectives are on it directly in relation to your own individual consciousness. For years I have been studying verifiable evidence that consciousness survives death (The Afterlife Experiments is a book I would recommend) and at this point I have no doubt that it does, but how or in what manner is a question science has yet to find an answer to. It’s clear that these ideas of heaven and hell, judgment and reward are only the advent of various close-minded religions, there to offer up their own definition of things to the ignorant masses and instill fear as a means to control. I have no interest in any dogmatic perception of life after death, and I actually think that society is still fighting the stereotype that in order for someone to believe that consciousness continues on after physical death they have to belong to one religion or another.

I’ve also found that while there are some credible clairvoyants, psychics, energy readers, clairsentients, etc. in the world, there are also those who label themselves as such but have abilities equal to that of a carnival act. I would draw a comparison to actual Satanists versus the way the entertainment industry portrays their version of Satanism in movies and on television. I’m curious how many people here may have had an experience with a legitimate psychic that may have offered some insight into the individual consciousness of those who have passed on and answered any questions about the manner in which consciousness shifts from the physical to being energy-based.

I’m also curious if there are any people who would define themselves as Satanists but would refuse to believe that consciousness survives death at all, despite the resounding scientific evidence that exists in the world today. My opinions and conclusions have always been based directly on logic and evidence and I’ve always made a point to research any subject which I actually find relevant to my personal quest for enlightenment. At the same time it has been my experience that most people who choose to dismiss the notion of consciousness surviving death are people who haven’t bothered looking at the evidence, or who have formed their opinions based on assumptions or the bad reputation of the previously mentioned carnival acts. It does not seem Satanic in my opinion to blindly dismiss anything based on the opinion of the ignorant social majority.

Top
#15053 - 11/28/08 05:52 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Ok I'll bite.

I most certainly define myself as a Satanist, and I also find the idea of consciousness surviving death highly unlikely.

You say there is 'resounding scientific evidence' to the contrary.

Where have they been hiding it? Believe me I have searched. Care to share?

All the evidence I have ever seen points to consciousness being an effect of the physical brain.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15054 - 11/28/08 06:10 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
blsk Offline
member


Registered: 09/22/08
Posts: 298
Loc: salem or
People are incapable of imagining what it will feel like to be dead because we have never experienced a lack of consciousness. In fact, it won’t feel like anything, and therein lies the problem. The brain is like any other organ, a part of our physical body. The mind is what the brain does; it’s more a verb than it is a noun.

Thomas W. Clark wrote: Here ... is the view at issue: When we die, what’s next is nothing; death is an abyss, a black hole, the end of experience; it is eternal nothingness, the permanent extinction of being. And here, in a nutshell, is the error contained in that view: It is to reify nothingness—make it a positive condition or quality (for example, of “blackness”)—and then to place the individual in it after death, so that we somehow fall into nothingness, to remain there eternally.

When you die you will never know you have died. You may feel yourself slipping away, but it isn’t as though there will be a “you” around who is capable of ascertaining that. You need a working cerebral cortex to harbor propositional knowledge of any sort, including the fact that you’ve died.

You cannot imagine your own non-existence. To do so you would have to imagine that you perceive or know about your non-existence. You possess an arsenal of psychological defenses designed to keep your death anxiety at bay. When you begin to die your brain and body is flooded with endorphins produced by the pituitary gland and the hypothalamus creating a sense of well-being.

I am comfortable with the fact their is nothing after as I have no reason to believe in such a thing. If their is, however, great(I hope). Shit, gotta go...
_________________________
Ed made mens sewing cool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9mhsW5aWJM

Top
#15055 - 11/28/08 06:27 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
In my life I have had a few experiences of the “paranormal”. However, there is just as much of a chance that it was nothing more than my imagination as there is of it being a real experience. I can’t see consciousness surviving death as being a pleasant thing. In fact I believe it would be quite boring.

To accept the idea that consciousness survives death; one must accept the idea that consciousness comes not from the living brain, but some outside source. This outside source is known to many as a soul. The soul is what many religions believe receives the judgment/reward/punishment in the afterlife. If such a thing were to exist both during life and after death one must assume that it also exists before life. Therefore one must also assume that one’s consciousness exists before life. That is a far reaching and ludicrous assumption to make in my opinion.

“For years I have been studying verifiable evidence that consciousness survives death (The Afterlife Experiments is a book I would recommend) and at this point I have no doubt that it does, but how or in what manner is a question science has yet to find an answer to.”

If they can’t explain how or in what manner it survives than how can they say it survives at all? There needs to needs to be at least some verified form of it surviving before that claim can be made.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#15057 - 11/28/08 06:37 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
For the absolute cynic I would recommend reading The Afterlife Experiments as previously mentioned. It was written by one of the most highly educated authors that I am aware of on this subject matter. In fact, Gary E. Schwartz, Ph.D. was the first person to actually entertain the notion of setting up laboratory experiments to find ways to measure and study the legitimacy and accuracy of psychic phenomenon, specifically people who were able to communicate with deceased persons. The experiments were highly controlled and always recorded. In some of the experiments the psychics were put in rooms with complete strangers that they could not see, who could only answer yes or no to their questions. They were given zero information about the person, yet managed to convey very specific personal information (things like a daughter having an abortion two days ago, or having a son that died at the age of 37 while driving a blue car that got hit by a drunk driver in the winter). Dead loved ones conveyed messages that would only have made sense to that one person (a childhood memory that no one knew about but the two of them). Of course no psychic was even one hundred percent accurate. Several explained receiving information like a fuzzy radio signal that cut in and out, so it ultimately came down to being able to make translations, which is something that human error will always be caught up in. There is an interesting quote from the book:

“All systems, in the process of becoming and remaining whole, store information dynamically. Systems are composed of component parts that share information and energy - from atoms and chemicals, through cells and organisms, to planets, galaxies, and the universe as a whole. Mathematical logic leads to the conclusion not only that all systems are ‘alive’ to various degrees, but also that this information continues as a living, evolving energy system after the physical structure has ceased to exist.”

Top
#15058 - 11/28/08 06:40 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
 Quote:
Therefore one must also assume that one’s consciousness exists before life. That is a far reaching and ludicrous assumption to make in my opinion.


Not more than existing after life in the buddhist reincarnation system.

As I just said in an other post, mind without body is a chimera.


Edited by Fabiano (11/28/08 06:41 PM)

Top
#15061 - 11/28/08 06:59 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Fabiano]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
I don't know too much about the buddhist idea of reincarnation, but I doubt if any of us will be "re-born"

I do believe in a sort of reincarnation but in a differnt way. All things are made up atoms. As far as we know these atoms never really dissapear but instead are reformed to make new things.

So in a way we will still exist after death. Not consciouss but maybe as a part of another living thing. Maybe as a part of some inanimate object.

While it may be a wierd idea, it is also an interesting one.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#15062 - 11/28/08 07:01 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Fabiano]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
I wrote my previous post before seeing last Tala's one.

So I would say I'm opened to consider changing my views if proofs exists. But as Dan said, I didn't saw such proofs up to now.

I would like to finish "The Prince" before starting an other book, so be patient for my comment "The Afterlife Experiments" \:\)

Top
#15063 - 11/28/08 07:05 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
 Quote:
I don't know too much about the buddhist idea of reincarnation, but I doubt if any of us will be "re-born"


Don't misunderstand me. I didn't say I beleive in reincarnation. I just wanted to point out that in that system consciousness before life is not more stupid than counsciousness after life.

Top
#15064 - 11/28/08 07:13 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Fabiano]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Yes, I am aware of Gary Shwartz. He is a steadfast supporter of intelligent design, and is also the author of "The G.O.D. Experiments: How Science Is Discovering God In Everything, Including Us "

He is also a well known shyster on the same level as Sylvia Brown
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6834964643442474141

He has also been dodging James Randis Million dollar challenge for years
http://www.randi.org/jr/03-23-2001.html

So you'll excuse me if I ask for a more credible source than this?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15065 - 11/28/08 07:15 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
Years ago it was a fact that the Earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it. Science found a way to prove the Earth was round, that it revolved around the sun. Before we understood the human reproductive system, it was thought by some people that a virgin could spontaneously become pregnant and then give birth. What use to be thought of as demonic possession or curses is now known to be chemical imbalances and physiological irregularities. I could list hundreds of things that once were considered facts that over time science found a way to measure and explain, in fields ranging in everything from biology to physics. Logically we know that there are things which exist that science cannot fully explain. We’ve barely tapped the surface of what lies within the human brain, what the universe is made of, how it all functions and interconnects. I would suggest not reverting to the thought processes of medieval times and assuming that just because the technology had not yet been invented to measure something, that means that something is non-existent.

Are there any students of quantum physics here? It’s an interesting fact quantum physicists have now proven that things are connected on a much deeper level than what the world originally believed. It was basically thought that only higher forms of life stored energy; now it’s understood that even rocks and other inanimate objects are actually vibrating at a subatomic level. People, for example, vibrate at an extremely high level and inanimate object vibrate at an extremely low level. Most people know for example that the colors we perceive aren’t actually there, it’s just our eyes translating information before it reaches the brain. It’s been proven that different colors vibrate at different levels - that is how our brains translate them. Now if you understand that basic premise, you can dig a little deeper and understand the next level, that at a subatomic level there is no such thing as separation, everything is literally connected by these particles at the smallest level. They are all vibrating, responding to one another, and exchanging information the same way the cells in our bodies do. There is no such thing as separation, it’s merely the way our brain perceives objects that are vibrating at different levels and different frequencies.

Our consciousness is embedded into physical form for as long as the physical body remains viable. We are experiencing life via the sensory perception of our body - touch, taste, smell, hearing, seeing. So how would you explain what colors are to a person that was born without eyesight? You cannot say that colors do not exist, but you can explain color with the simple understanding that it is something certain people do not have the capacity to perceive. At the same level, most people do not have the capacity to perceive the energies and vibrations outside of what their physical bodies allow them to. Clairvoyants, clairsentients, etc. are simply people who were born with or developed a higher level of awareness (perhaps they are even the next level of evolution in humanity) through the physical senses. Just because you or I may not have the senses they have, does that mean they are not real any more than it means color is not real?

Top
#15068 - 11/28/08 08:22 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: Tala de Sade
Just because you or I may not have the senses they have, does that mean they are not real any more than it means color is not real?


Not "not real," rather UNPROVEN. And in some ways, that can be more damning, since their credibility in not being able to show demonstrable AND replicable results will always leave their abilities open to question.

In a simple example, we have a "psychic" who claims to be able to tell what a card is, looking only at the back of the card. You hold up a card and they say, "Eight of Hearts." CONGRATULATIONS! Lo and behold, it's the Eight of Hearts. You hold up another card and they say, "Two of Hearts." No cigar, it was the Seven of Clubs. This goes on for an hour, wrong card after wrong card until, "Ten of Spades." CORRECT.

To the "psychic," it could be a validation, because they managed to get two right. To the researcher, it would show randomality, in that "even a broken clock is right twice a day." It boils down to a matter of faith in the ability of the psychic and in the possibility that the experiment is humanly possible to complete successfully in the first place, let alone replicate enough times to show that randomality is not in place.

The burden of proof will always have to be on the shoulders of those who make the claim of paranormal accomplishment. They have the luxury of belief based soley on faith. To specifically declare reality, those engaged in true research through rational experimentation and metrics require much more.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#15087 - 11/29/08 05:09 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I refuse to believe consciousness survives the death of its vessel. I am reasonable informed about consciousness and its requirements and see no valid option on how it ever can survive the death of the brain it is an epiphenomenon of.

There might be a possibility in the future but it would require such an advanced technological level that it seems close to impossible. If not totally.

I never seen any reasonable evidence, or even a theory, that makes me doubt my position on this.

PS: on the afterlife experiments

 Quote:
Conclusions
So what is the bottom line? The Afterlife Experiments describes a program of experiments described in four reports using mediums and sitters. The studies were methodologically defective in a number of important ways, not the least of which was that they were not double-blind. Despite these defects, the authors of the reports claim that their mediums were accessing information by paranormal means and that the application of Occam’s Razor leads to the conclusion that the mediums are indeed in contact with the departed friends and relatives of the sitters. Schwartz’s demand that the skeptics provide an alternative explanation to their results is clearly unwarranted because of the lack of scientifically acceptable evidence. A fifth report describes a study that was designed to be a true double-blind experiment. The outcome, by any accepted statistical and methodological standard, failed to support the hypothesis of the survival of consciousness. Yet the experimenters offer the results as a "breathtaking" validation of their claims about the existence of the afterlife. This is another unfortunate example of trying to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.


Critiquing the Afterlife Experiments

D.


Edited by Diavolo (11/29/08 05:26 AM)
Edit Reason: added ps

Top
#15088 - 11/29/08 05:57 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Quote:
We’ve barely tapped the surface of what lies within the human brain, what the universe is made of, how it all functions and interconnects. I would suggest not reverting to the thought processes of medieval times and assuming that just because the technology had not yet been invented to measure something, that means that something is non-existent.


I think you subject yourself to some fundamental flaws in thinking with this one. A + B does not necessary equal C.
We know a lot about the brain and also that effects on the brain have effects on consciousness. If consciousness was an external entity, not limited to survival on his host, effects on the brain would have no effects on consciousness. If someone suffers Alzheimer and his storage gets slowly deleted, would that, after his death, leave him with a blank consciousness? The same for permanent brain damage. And how would a not subject to evolution consciousness develop. Does it develop in us when born or does it possess us? If it doesn't infiltrate us when being born and is subject to the body and brain at that stage, what is the reason it would seperate after death? It's totally contradicting evolution. Why would a human evolve and become smarter when consciousness has found some ways to sidestep it?

The fact that science has come a long way and cannot explain everything does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that therefor everything imaginable is possible. If I see a grasshopper fall from 100 times his height and handle it without a problem, I would be called insane for stating that maybe I can also fall from 100 times my height and handle it.

This rule applies also for quantum mechanics. It's not because there is certain behavior at a micro-level that it automatically follows that it is therefor also possible at a macro-level or that such behavior is positive evidence for the existance of other.

Again, I'm highly skeptical and evidence or theories supporting are often flawed but at times not realized.

D.

Top
#15102 - 11/29/08 01:02 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
"I would suggest not reverting to the thought processes of medieval times and assuming that just because the technology had not yet been invented to measure something, that means that something is non-existent."

I am most definitely not "reverting to the thought process of medieval times. People back then would be more inclined to believe the idea of consciousness surving death. It fits with their delusion of god so well. If theses people you speak of can't say in what manner it survives, they have no right to say that it survives all. To do so is to make a claim with no validity. It is like the really toy that the kid at school has. He forgot to bring it today, but he'll bring tomorrow or the day after that, or the day after that. Until you really start to doubt that he even has it all.

"Before we understood the human reproductive system, it was thought by some people that a virgin could spontaneously become pregnant and then give birth."

People still believe that a virgin can spontaneously become pregnant. Immaculate conception is one of the corner stones of Christian mythology.

"What use to be thought of as demonic possession or curses is now known to be chemical imbalances and physiological irregularities."

Chemical imbalances are just as made up as the idea of consciousness surviving death. Their is no way to prove any balance at all. Chemical imblance is merely a term made up by psychiatrists to sell their posion to people the world over.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#15114 - 11/29/08 04:08 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
"Chemical imbalances are just as made up as the idea of consciousness surviving death. Their is no way to prove any balance at all. Chemical imblance is merely a term made up by psychiatrists to sell their posion to people the world over."

That's what blood tests/levels are for...
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#15116 - 11/29/08 04:34 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Morgan]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
"That's what blood tests/levels are for..."

And what do blood tests have to do with proving a chemical imbalance in the brain?
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#15119 - 11/29/08 06:44 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
blsk Offline
member


Registered: 09/22/08
Posts: 298
Loc: salem or
A good read is called The Physics of Immortality. To touch on it the author states that the universe is one big computer program and that when all mathmatical equasions have been exhausted it will reboot thus doing it all over again.

Men of old experimented with the theory of spontaneous generation in which it was believed that, as an example, when food is left out maggots and gnats appeared out of nowhere to consume it. Obviously, experiments proved this not to be true though it was previously believed to be. So yes it was "fact" in the sense that things like the earth being flat was widely accepted. There IS absolute truth whether it is "factual" to man or not.

Again, the mind is what the brain does. Just the same as any other organ, when it ceases to live it ceases to produce, the way the heart ceases to produce a pulse when it dies. The reason man can't accept the fact that concsiousness ends is because conscious thought is not capable to do so. That is why they come to the conclusion that surely it must go on. Its sole purpose it to produce conscious thought. To do ask it to do anything else goes against its NATURE. It cannot perform a task it is not assigned to do. That's like asking your eyes to hear or your ears to see. It's not what they do.




Just thought this was well said, thanks
(Our consciousness is embedded into physical form for as long as the physical body remains viable. We are experiencing life via the sensory perception of our body - touch, taste, smell, hearing, seeing. So how would you explain what colors are to a person that was born without eyesight? You cannot say that colors do not exist, but you can explain color with the simple understanding that it is something certain people do not have the capacity to perceive. At the same level, most people do not have the capacity to perceive the energies and vibrations outside of what their physical bodies allow them to. Clairvoyants, clairsentients, etc. are simply people who were born with or developed a higher level of awareness (perhaps they are even the next level of evolution in humanity) through the physical senses. Just because you or I may not have the senses they have, does that mean they are not real any more than it means color is not real? )


Edited by blsk (11/29/08 07:29 PM)
_________________________
Ed made mens sewing cool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9mhsW5aWJM

Top
#15123 - 11/29/08 07:40 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
 Quote:
"Before we understood the human reproductive system, it was thought by some people that a virgin could spontaneously become pregnant and then give birth."

People still believe that a virgin can spontaneously become pregnant. Immaculate conception is one of the corner stones of Christian mythology.


Probably Tala was thinking about parthenogenesis. However, it seems to be impossible for humans...

Top
#15124 - 11/29/08 09:15 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: blsk]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
What I would perceive as consciousness would better be technically defined as energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed - although it can be harnessed (the way electricity is used to power everyday appliances, for example, is one specific type of energy). So if energy can be used to power otherwise inanimate objects, why would it seem so far-fetched that energy/consciousness is being used to power our bodies? And if energy cannot be destroyed, why is it so far-fetched that our energy/consciousness simply detaches from the source (the physical body) and moves onto a non-physical environment that most human beings are not able to perceive?

I am aware that there are at least as many parlor acts out there - people that employ techniques such as cold reading for entertainment - as there are legitimate psychics, probably more. I would define a legitimate psychic as someone who is constantly able to reproduce higher than average results in conveying accurate information when asked to read for a complete stranger without being provided with any information about them beforehand. These are the people that are actually able to make a living at what they do, who can actually carry on a conversation with a person for an hour and prove that the information they can provide is extremely specific and not be reliant upon “a few lucky guesses.” Some people would refer to that ability as the sixth sense.

I would define the sixth sense as the ability to intuit things which exceed the realm of basic instinct, the reading of various forms of energy not perceivable by any of the other five senses. Some people call it intuition. Like any other sense it can be underdeveloped or overdeveloped depending on the individual. There are people out there who happen to fall into the realm of “overdeveloped.” Has anybody watched the television series Psychic Children? Yes, the media is available to fall under scrutiny when presenting any form of controversial subject matter (ironically this would also be why most people with said abilities keep it to themselves), but I think it would be an interesting show to watch as an introduction to this subject and how it exists in our world.

Top
#15125 - 11/29/08 09:23 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Okay, that makes more sense. Our enegy may remain behind after we are dead, but our consciousness will not. While this energy may continue to exist, I don't think any part of us will continue to exist with it.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#15126 - 11/29/08 09:33 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
Chemical imbalances are just as made up as the idea of consciousness surviving death. Their is no way to prove any balance at all. Chemical imblance is merely a term made up by psychiatrists to sell their posion to people the world over.


I suppose you’re going to suggest that Schizophrenia, Narcolepsy and Post-Partum Depression are made up as well? They are defined by specific chemical/hormonal imbalances in the brain. They are treated with medications known to specifically target those chemicals. Even the food we eat has been proven to alter the different chemicals flowing through our veins. These things are not imaginary. I think it this point I can reasonably say that these things have been proven to exist and that medications have been developed as proven treatments.

To say that “there is no way to prove any balance at all” is as logical as saying that every single human being has the same genetic predisposition to certain ailments, the same physical characteristics, and basically that we are all exactly alike. One only has to look at those whom they are surrounded by to prove that each person is unique, each person has a different biological “balance” and that different conditions are caused by different alterations in that balance.

Top
#15128 - 11/29/08 09:36 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:
So if energy can be used to power otherwise inanimate objects, why would it seem so far-fetched that energy/consciousness is being used to power our bodies?


Do you honestly not see the flaws with this type of mystical minded thinking? What happens to the electricity that was used to power the lightbulb when you turn it off? Does it continue on, as some sort of spiritual light source in another dimension?

I am still waiting for any sort of credible scientific source for any of this. There is a reason why Schwartz has never been published in a credible peer reviewed scientific journal. Because he is a hack. Can you give me just one piece of evidence or one good reason to take ANY of this seriously?

If Schwartz's book is the sole source of all this,you have been conned.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15129 - 11/29/08 09:36 PM Higher awareness [Re: Succubus666]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
 Quote:
Clairvoyants, clairsentients, etc. are simply people who were born with or developed a higher level of awareness (perhaps they are even the next level of evolution in humanity) through the physical senses. Just because you or I may not have the senses they have, does that mean they are not real any more


I do not deny that some have a higher level of awareness. For instance I reported I knew my sister was pregnant before she told me. I’m also able to find water with rods…

However these can/could be rationally explained.

 Originally Posted By: Fabiano
Science experiments show that we’re still able to perceive this (experience about how people sit close or far from a pregnant woman in a waiting room) but this is not (generally) consciously known. However, the subconscious have this information. I rationally explain my experience as the fact that this information popped out from my subconscious to my conscious. It really a direct global perception of the reality.


Finding water is not yet explained but this is conceivable. The same for Tibetan physicians who’re able to make a diagnostic only by touching/sensing their patients.

However there are thing that are hardly conceivable for a rational mind, like :
- consciousness after death (mainly for the reason given by Diavolo)
- knowing the future (needing access to some information repository alike akashic records and raising questions on fate, destiny & free will )
- some of the magic mentioned in TSB
 Quote:
The amount of energy needed to levitate a teacup (genuinely) would be of sufficient force to place an idea in a group of people's heads half-way across the earth, in turn, motivating them in accordance with your will.


However, as a true truth seeker, I can’t just close my mind to some of my own experiences. One of these experiences is meeting you (all) here and seeing rational people playing with the occult.

I also “played” with Tarots and went to “Tarots readers”. There are lots of predictions who never happened (yet?) or are too vague and subject to interpretation to be confirmed or infirmed.

However, there was a period during which I had the Pope appearing often in my cards on question related to work. I went to a “Tarot reader” and she predicted me protection from a powerful man (confirming my own conclusions). And on this I must admit it happened… And I swear that it’s really annoying my rational side!


Edited by Fabiano (11/29/08 09:42 PM)

Top
#15130 - 11/29/08 09:41 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Fabiano]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
" suppose you’re going to suggest that Schizophrenia, Narcolepsy and Post-Partum Depression are made up as well? They are defined by specific chemical/hormonal imbalances in the brain"

And now I will ask for some proof of this. What tests can be done to prove these chemical imbalances and what chemicals are out of balance?
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#15131 - 11/29/08 10:01 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
blsk Offline
member


Registered: 09/22/08
Posts: 298
Loc: salem or
On that note. The energy we are using is burned off in what we call body heat. This energy doesn't come from some unseen universe. It is created in the body from the fuel we consume called food. When we die, we stop eating, digesting and in turn producing energy. So there is nothing from us to go on to another form.

Edited by blsk (11/29/08 10:02 PM)
_________________________
Ed made mens sewing cool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9mhsW5aWJM

Top
#15132 - 11/29/08 10:03 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
 Quote:
What happens to the electricity that was used to power the lightbulb when you turn it off? Does it continue on, as some sort of spiritual light source in another dimension?


I don’t think you understood the point I was illustrating. There are various types of energy out there and electricity is only one of them. The type of energy I am referring to powering the human body would be one that has evolved to the point of being able to carry sentience.


 Quote:
I am still waiting for any sort of credible scientific source for any of this.


It’s not the only book I’ve read on the matter, I just thought it was a good basic illustration. I was not aware of the controversy that surrounded Schwartz or the accusations that had been made against him. I did watch the video link that you posted, but cannot be sure of its authenticity anymore than one could be assured of the absolute authenticity of his book. I’ve never heard him make claims that he himself was psychic, in fact I’m aware that he’s stated numerous times that he was not. So the idea that HE would go into some guy’s house and make statements about a dead son seems like nonsense. To me it sounded like a stage show set up to make him look bad. I guess he pissed off the wrong person.

I could sit here and list dozens off books, but I think that Edgar Cayce’s work would be the best place to look. It’s been studied for years and every reading he ever gave is on permanent record. He was able to access information (cures for diseases, future information on the stock market, etc.) that no reasonable person could have blindly been able to answer on the spot and answer so accurately.

Top
#15133 - 11/29/08 10:13 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:
The type of energy I am referring to powering the human body would be one that has evolved to the point of being able to carry sentience.

Do you not realize how huge of a claim that is?

Cayce has been debunked as a fraud for a really long time.
http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Cayce,%20Edgar.html

If there was really science behind all this life after death stuff, don't you think there would be ongoing research? Demonstrable, repeatable results? Write-ups in prominent scientific journals? Doesn't the absence of these factors strike you as a little bit strange?

Look I'm willing to drop this if you are willing to admit that these beliefs of yours are faith based. Otherwise bald assertions just aren't going to cut it. I want real, credible, hard evidence. So should you.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15134 - 11/29/08 10:14 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
Dan,

I think Jack already highlighted the difference between not real and unproven. I doubt on the "evidences" brought by Tala, mainly thanks to you.

But it remains that unproven does not implies not real.

How do you explain the extract of TSB I quoted in my previous post? As a Satanist, do you beleive it's possible to levitate a teacup or putting idea in other distant poeple mind? And if your answer is yes, do you have a rational explanation?

I'm not fighting against you, just realy curious about your view...

And on the mysticism, I would also be pleased to have your comment on Mequa's post.


Edited by Fabiano (11/29/08 10:19 PM)

Top
#15143 - 11/29/08 11:16 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Fabiano]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
On energy powering the body, I think electricity is not the best illustration. I see it more like the energy you lack when you're depressed. Everybody I guess already experienced that all is hard when we're depressed.

Other point: there is a strong relationship between mind and body. I see on this forum a tendency to see it in one direction only : the mind is an effect of the body, the brain is the cause of the mind. However, the mind in turn can have effects on the body. Simply and obviously when you decide to move you hand but also in Toumo meditation where some particular visualisation of ida and pinga causes an unusual production of heat.

Finally, as I'm an IT guy, I can't resist making a comparison between mind/body and software/hardware. Suppose you never seen a computer and you are given a running one to observe. If you have strong notions of physic you’ll attack the problem by the hardware side, looking at the electrons inside the transistors for explaining the behaviour of the software (alike looking at neurotransmitters in the brain). You’ll argue that without hardware no software. But without software you just have a heap of hardware components.

But the software come from outside, it is not generated by the hardware. I know comparisons has limits, but where our consciousness comes from if not generated by the body? To me there is mystery about consciousness…

Top
#15144 - 11/29/08 11:57 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Fabiano]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:
How do you explain the extract of TSB I quoted in my previous post? As a Satanist, do you beleive it's possible to levitate a teacup or putting idea in other distant poeple mind? And if your answer is yes, do you have a rational explanation?

Well I'm not a TSB literalist, I don't agree with every single word but it could be argued that he was talking about 'the energy required' to lift a tea cup, rather than actually doing it.

I think the human mind is capable of great and as of yet unexplained things, but keeping an open mind and developing faith based beliefs are two different things.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15146 - 11/30/08 05:06 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Sorry for the double post, but it seems it is too late to edit and I wanted to address this point I overlooked earlier.
 Quote:


Finally, as I'm an IT guy, I can't resist making a comparison between mind/body and software/hardware. Suppose you never seen a computer and you are given a running one to observe. If you have strong notions of physic you’ll attack the problem by the hardware side, looking at the electrons inside the transistors for explaining the behaviour of the software (alike looking at neurotransmitters in the brain). You’ll argue that without hardware no software. But without software you just have a heap of hardware components.

But the software come from outside

Software is just a pattern of 1s and 0s executed by the hardware. It only 'comes from outside' in that it is placed into storage from an external source. But so is everything we know/observe/learn that is the essence of the nurtured side of who we are. The rest is innate, ie the nature side. Firmware if you will.

The way a computer acquires and stores data is really quite analogous to how the brain does it. The computer maps data to storage that has been presented via an external download source.(a cd/the internet) The Brain maps data to storage that has been presented by external download source. (our senses/our thoughts) The data we acquire from our senses is not meaningful in any coherent way until our brain gets ahold of it and makes it so. The same is true of computer instructions (software).

It would be difficult for you to argue that the compressed data on a cd, which is essentially instructions for the machine, is meaningful independent of the machine. Software doesn't do anything by itself.

And how do you think this human 'software' would carry on once the hardware had expired? What medium would transmit it, and to where? What evidence or experience or logic has lead you to the conclusions you have reached?

This all seems like a bunch of mystical minded spiritual pipedreams from where I'm sitting.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15147 - 11/30/08 05:28 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Fabiano]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I think a lot of confusion here comes from the fact that people have a wrong idea about consciousness. Many think there is some sort of Carthesian theatre in our mind, a central director. That idea is the old medieval idea of a soul possessing the body, old dual thinking.

In reality consciousness isn't stable and there isn't a central director in your mind. What you are or better what your "I" is depends on certain coalitions in your brain. Your I isn't identical all the time and highly dependant. Brain damage might completely shift your I and you'll be a totally different person. The same for diseases or drugs or emotional states. You don't lack energy when you are depressed, you are subject to different coalitions in your brain, affecting your consciousness and thus affecting your experiences of the outer realm. Being in love or hating is another nice example. The loving you is a different person than the hating you even when outside not much difference is seen.

To learn more about this, check out Dennett, consciousness explained being a good starter. It might get rid of the old dual thinking.

If you realize that consciousness is highly dependant on the brain, it becomes much more obvious that they can't be seperated.
Consciousness depends not on energy as much as on neural pathways in your brain. Of course, like a computer your brain calculates and makes decisions based upon calculations -although a bit different- but the moment these calculations stop -death or brain death- your consciousness is gone.
It's a bit similar to a computer, when you switch the power off, it's only hardware and none wonders if its OS is still hanging around somewhere.

Consciousness might be linked to language and there is a theory that states that it was a requirement for consciousness to develop in evolution. I'm not sure how far that theory is developed nowadays, it's been some years since I read about it.
If there is no (internal) debate, there is no consciousness. It might explain why animals and humans differ that greatly at the level of consciousness.

Again, consciousness surviving death is at best highly unlikely.

Energy surviving, maybe but what's the point of bothering about it. If I take a crap, I seperate energy from my body too but I won't wonder if the energy of my pile of shit isn't going to some dimension being spiritual crap.

Medium: Hmm I sense something out there, it's brown and warm... might it be related to you?

D.

Top
#15148 - 11/30/08 05:39 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Quote:
And how do you think this human 'software' would carry on once the hardware had expired? What medium would transmit it, and to where? What evidence or experience or logic has lead you to the conclusions you have reached?


Although I don't think consciousness surviving death is possible, there is some option to carry on, although not in the manner most see it. Memetics is the answer.
You can carry on in the brains of others or in sources that affect brains. Of course, you won't be real, you won't be a conscious entity but there is a possibility to carry on, rather limited however.

D.

Top
#15149 - 11/30/08 08:18 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada

Give blow for blow, scorn for scorn, doom for doom—with compound interest liberally added thereunto! 
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, aye fourfold, a hundred‐fold! Make yourself a Terror to your adversary, 
and when he goeth his way, he will possess much additional wisdom to ruminate over. Thus shall you make yourself 
respected in all the walks of life, and your spirit—your immortal spirit—shall live, not in an intangible paradise, but in the brains and sinews of those whose respect you have gained.


Sounds familiar. \:\)

True immortality.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15152 - 11/30/08 09:43 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Yeah and the concept isn't new at all. The more you explore the past, the more often you'll find ideas touching the same; immortality through remembering or replicating your story. Even the old Greeks knew that specific acts guaranteed them immortality as a memetic replicator. A good example is Leonidas and the battle at Thermopylae. The story has been told since then and he continues to live on, propagating his ideas or ideals. At times it is dormant until phenomena like 300 suddenly make it active and highly reproductive again. It's not static of course and subject to mutation and selection.

Memetics is a nowadays scientific approach to things but in the old days, they knew the same principle to gain immortality.

D.

Top
#15153 - 11/30/08 10:37 AM Re: Higher awareness [Re: Fabiano]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Quote:
However, there was a period during which I had the Pope appearing often in my cards on question related to work. I went to a “Tarot reader” and she predicted me protection from a powerful man (confirming my own conclusions). And on this I must admit it happened… And I swear that it’s really annoying my rational side!


Perception is everything but perception does not always equal reality.

It is weird how things happen that confuse our rational mind and leave us with questions and maybe even doubts. What we often forget is that 99% of the time, things go as expected and that those anomalies are small % exceptions. We just tend to give them more credit or more importance than the bulk of normal behavior.

Just a couple of hours before I experienced one of those anomalies. I was at my partners and there was a badge of one of the kids displaying: "I like live". It confused me because I found the sentence rather dumb. I pondered a bit about it but did not see any connection with it and live music and such. Then I looked at the badge again and it actually read "I like life". Not something I would like to be seen with but what happened there was that while I was briefly reading the sentence and not paying too much attention, my brain filled in the gaps and changed the reality of the message. It's a minor incident but I do think the same principles apply in other situations too.

I think most of us experienced the famous déjà-vu. At some point you realize that this seems to have happened before or you have been here already. There are a lot of theories that lead to all kinds of higher explanations but it is nothing but your brain tricking you. There are a couple of similarities with already stored memories and your brain fills in the gaps with already known information, giving you the shock-experience.
We all experienced the awkward feeling when we see someone we know on the street, start shouting and waving at him until we suddenly realize that it isn't him at all and feel rather silly for waving at a stranger. The moment you see that person, your brain will fuck things up and tell you; that's yer buddy but once you are processing new information and the brain overwrites the previously filled in information, you will notice the mistakes it made.
We don't pay too much attention to that because we were mistaking, even when it is the same principle as the déjà-vu. Still, when other mistakes happen we tend to put them on a pedestal.

It's the same with predicting stuff. We can be a 100 times wrong and easily forget that but if we're on spot once or twice, we find it remarkable.

I do think some people are able to guess things more right than others but it is contextual and not subject to higher awareness in a mystical or whatever sense.

I've been a gambler in the past, playing some blackjack version. I was quite good at it and some people were amazed about my luck being out of proportion. It didn't have anything to do with higher awareness as much as just being aware. While others traditionally started to drink alcoholics when playing, I switched to coffee. I also read them more than their cards and a lot of people are fairly predictable when it comes to betting. And, because we only half-ass shuffled between games, certain packs of cards tend to stick together, making the probabilities of predicting a high or low card way easier than expected. Of course I didn't explain it to them and prefered them believing I was exceptionally lucky.
When I play poker online, I sure can't reproduce the effects, cards don't cluster, people seldom drink and when I'm lucky and long enough at the same table with the same guys, I can maybe find out who's a safe player and who gambles like an idiot but I don't suffer exceptional luck there.

The same goes for all kinds of predictions, it's a matter of being aware, reading people and gambling on high probabilities, even when the mediums don't always consciously realize it. And last but not least, most bet on the help of the victim. If you're right with one of two predictions people tend to give more and more credit to what you say, even when a lot of it is bullshit. They focus on what is right.

If I'd say you are about 1.75m, have brown-probably a bit to the light side- hair, have a bit of confidence problems and struggle somewhat with your sexuality or at least masculinity, I can be 100% wrong in this but odds are I am going to be close on at least one, and if a second hits the bullseye, you're going to start ignoring the others. If a third is right, you'll start doubting how it is rationally possible. Of course, if you'd believe in mediums and predictions, you'd be even more susceptible. The more I guess, the more I am going to be right and if I hit the critical number required for a certain person, he'll grant me special powers.

Like I said; perception is everything but not always reality.

D.


Edited by Diavolo (11/30/08 10:42 AM)
Edit Reason: added quote

Top
#15154 - 11/30/08 10:41 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
 Quote:
It would be difficult for you to argue that the compressed data on a cd, which is essentially instructions for the machine, is meaningful independent of the machine. Software doesn't do anything by itself.


Difficult to argue without giving a little IT lesson indeed. I might be view as off topic but I can’t argue without it. The point is to define data and to make some disambiguation about it.

So, never mind, I go…

First data can be defined by opposition to program. The program being the instructions, the code. The data being what the program is manipulates. In 1+2=3, 1 & 2 are input data, 3 output data and + is the code, the program.

2nd data can be defined by opposition to information. An information is a fact, an event, an object… of the real word relevant in the frame of an IT project. Data is encoded information. For instance, my size is an information which can be encoded as “Fabiano is 5.5 ft” or “Fabiano mesure un mètre septante”. Same info, different data.

3rd Software can be defined by opposition to hardware. It’s composed of program and (optional) data (reference data). The firmware is a software embeeded in the Hardware but not generated by it.

4th an algorithm is the information underlying a program. The program being a particular implementation of the algorithm it’s indeed not meaningfull independent of the machine, but not the algorithm. Fort instance quick sort and bubble sort are two sorting algorithms and they’re meaningful independent of the machine Q.E.D.


 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
And how do you think this human 'software' would carry on once the hardware had expired? What medium would transmit it, and to where? What evidence or experience or logic has lead you to the conclusions you have reached?


 Originally Posted By: Fabiano
I know comparisons has limits, but where our consciousness comes from if not generated by the body? To me there is mystery about consciousness…


Where did you see I made any conclusion? I just asked questions and by saying there is a mystery, I express that I have no conclusion...

About "the medium used to transit it" couldn't it be the same used for placing an idea in a group of people's heads half-way across the earth (TSB) ?


Edited by Fabiano (11/30/08 10:47 AM)

Top
#15156 - 11/30/08 11:25 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Fabiano]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
[quote=Fabiano]
 Quote:
About "the medium used to transit it" couldn't it be the same used for placing an idea in a group of people's heads half-way across the earth (TSB) ?


Let's not get too hung up on this small part of The Satanic Bible. LaVey was indulging in a bit of allegory. He wasn't saying it was possible... he was saying that it was a huge amount of energy. Basically, trying to will a teacup to levitate is a waste of time when it's much easier to reach out and pick the thing up.

He's simply using allegory to show that one needs to have desire... hence the topic of this passage; that the "magician" must firmly believe that what he is willing shall come to pass. He wasn't an advocate of levitations, mass mind control or the existence of anything "immortal" or "continuing" about humanity beyond the grave. He felt that when you died, you were gone, save in the memories of those closest to you or whose respect you had gained through your personal efforts.

"There is no Heaven of glory bright, or Hell where sinners roast." Life is life and death is the end of life and individual consciousness.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#15157 - 11/30/08 11:26 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Fabiano]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
Men of old experimented with the theory of spontaneous generation in which it was believed that, as an example, when food is left out maggots and gnats appeared out of nowhere to consume it. Obviously, experiments proved this not to be true though it was previously believed to be.

The theory wasn't wrong, it went into modification. The very first life forms (I'm talking about 3.5 billon years ago) were "spontaneous". They came to life under certain atmosferic conditions and chemical reactions. (Miller-Urey-experiment) You should look it up if you want to see the whole thing.

 Quote:
" suppose you’re going to suggest that Schizophrenia, Narcolepsy and Post-Partum Depression are made up as well? They are defined by specific chemical/hormonal imbalances in the brain"

And now I will ask for some proof of this. What tests can be done to prove these chemical imbalances and what chemicals are out of balance?

Easy, you take 2 persons, 1 with those psychological problems and one healthy normal person. From both persons you take some blood and run some test for hormone balances. Also; put them in a chair put some electrodes on their brain and start analysing brain patterns. You'll quite quickly see the chemical imbalances..

 Quote:
And how do you think this human 'software' would carry on once the hardware had expired? What medium would transmit it, and to where? What evidence or experience or logic has lead you to the conclusions you have reached?

Software expires, hardware gets modified but will still work with the original mechanical within. Same goes for humans, software will expire, but the original minds and working of the human mind will stay the same. Only the sofware will be gone.

 Quote:
About "the medium used to transit it" couldn't it be the same used for placing an idea in a group of people's heads half-way across the earth (TSB) ?

Could be applied indeed, but do not forget; he wasn't mentioning the methods on how the transition worked to put an idea into one's mind on a distant.. Same goes for levitating the cup.. There is no mentioning about the method used. This makes a whole world of difference.


Edited by Dimitri (11/30/08 11:31 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#15158 - 11/30/08 11:34 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
I'm not going to go in a detail point by point answer as I already gave some of these datails elsewhere (use the search engine). I'll just mainly put some of my quotes for enabling your search:

 Originally Posted By: Fabiano
I always feel a malaise in splitting me in a body and a mind. I'm my mind AND my body


You seem to confuse mind and consciousness.

 Originally Posted By: Fabiano

Quote:
One realize thus, at first, during introspection that the phenomena contemplated are different from the mind which is contemplating : inside the mind, the faculty thanks to which it perceives its own mechanisms is different from the mechanisms which are observed. The meditator (the person who meditates) understands that his consciousness is different from the object it is contemplating, but it’s a knowledge which is not located at the verbal level as we’re expressing it here. The meditator comes on the contrary to this realisation and to all next realisations by a direct experience. He can very well not being able to express with words his own realisations; he understands but he not necessary able to explain what he understands.


So I define the consciousness as the faculty thanks to which it perceives its own mechanisms

 Quote:
Consciousness might be linked to language
Sit on zafu, do some introspection, and you'll see this assertion is false! There is a direct perception of the reality beyong langage.


 Quote:
Medium: Hmm I sense something out there, it's brown and warm... might it be related to you?


I used medium in
 Quote:
About "the medium used to transit it" couldn't it be the same used for placing an idea in a group of people's heads half-way across the earth (TSB) ?
I was not talking about Mediums pretending to be in contact with the deads!

However, do you consider all the occult as bullshit? This site isn't about Satanism and the occult ?


Edited by Fabiano (11/30/08 12:12 PM)

Top
#15159 - 11/30/08 11:39 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
To me memes use language (oral, writen, body language...) for transmitting from brain to brain. It as nothing to do with what Tala suggests.
Top
#15161 - 11/30/08 12:05 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Jake999]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
Jack, It's not the flying cup that worries me. I'm more curious about "placing an idea in a group of people's heads half-way across the earth"

Is it allegory? So why is it recomended to cast spell during nigth when the victim is more receptive?

Or putting ideas in other's distant mind when they sleep is possible or it isn't.
Could you clearly answer this? Is it possible?

If it's possible, then (again) what's the medium (i.e. Communication mean) used to transmit these ideas?

Finally, (for all of you) don't misunderstand me, I do not adhere to Swartz theories.

Top
#15163 - 11/30/08 12:23 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Fabiano]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
In the case of the teacup, it's allegory.

The timing in the "casting of spells," refers to a specific action to influence the mind of those one would "enchant." When I wrote that he wasn't into mass mind control, it's a bit of a misnomer, because magically, in theory, anyway, one could pass a mass message in one's dreams. I dunno what the hell idea I would want to implant into the subconscious of millions... maybe to send me a dollar.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#15164 - 11/30/08 12:37 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Fabiano]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I'm not sure what you are responding here but I assume it is all upon some reply from me. You quoting yourself makes it a bit confusing, it would have been easier if you would have mentioned it.

First, I don't confuse mind and consciousness, mind = consciousness = brain. There is no duality even when we seem to speak about it seperately. There is no faculty in the sense of a director. What you describe as faculty or even the meditator seems to be in line with old dual thinking, or at least the idea that there is a fixed "I" in the brain.
Personally I do think meditation and all the mumbo-jumbo surrounding it is a bunch of bullshit but that's me. Every conclusion made can just as easy come through rational thinking. I don't believe in enlightenment or whatever it is called, to me it is identical to smoking some weed and suddenly seeing it. I've had a lot of gnosis using a lot of funky drugs but realistically it only showed me how easily my perception of reality, even the reality itself can be shifted by messing up my neurons.

The crap-medium comment was not directed at you but as an example on released energy and it's usefulness to contemplate upon. No matter how shitty it sounds, it is a perfect example to show that energy is irrelevant when not being in use.

And no I don't consider everthing occult as bullshit but honestly, most yes. And yes I know this is about Satanism & occult, thanks for reminding me, but as the oldtimers here know, I am not the type that is too bothered about things when it comes to stating his opinion. So in some occult there is some essence that is valid, at least if you elevate it above the form but most of it is of such a nature that I consider it crap. The second part of the SB is something I considered a waste of time, paper and money. Give me Crowley any day.
Not that I want to start a whole debate about that; been there, done that, said it all, no gain only pain.

Memes don't use anything, memes are. They go way beyond linguistic limitations and can be potent in visual versions, think symbolry, too. Indeed it has nothing to do with what Tala said but as I mentioned, of all belief in afterlife, this is THE only option.

D.

Top
#15167 - 11/30/08 02:07 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Picunnus Offline
member


Registered: 11/29/08
Posts: 101
Loc: Ohio, USA
The whole software issue was explained to me long ago in a way that stuck in my mind - matter precedes mind. Without matter, there can be no mind.
_________________________
WWAD?

Top
#15168 - 11/30/08 02:12 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Jake999]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
Well, so I understand that it is possible to put some idea in ONE distant mind (correct me if I misundertood you).

Then, logically, there must be a communication mean over which these ideas are transmitted...

The medium Dan was looking for is unproven but at least accepted by those believing in magic...

Top
#15170 - 11/30/08 02:19 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Fabiano]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
"Easy, you take 2 persons, 1 with those psychological problems and one healthy normal person. From both persons you take some blood and run some test for hormone balances. Also; put them in a chair put some electrodes on their brain and start analysing brain patterns. You'll quite quickly see the chemical imbalances.."

Nope, im sorry but that would not work. My whole point was that any notions of a chemical imbalance is BS.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#15172 - 11/30/08 02:47 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
Ooh Diavolo you disappoint me here!

 Quote:
I'm not sure what you are responding here but I assume it is all upon some reply from me. You quoting yourself makes it a bit confusing, it would have been easier if you would have mentioned it.


Are you blind? Sure I'm answering you : " [Re: Diavolo] and sure I mentioned it : " And "I'll just mainly put some of my quotes for enabling your search: "

 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
Personally I do think meditation and all the mumbo-jumbo surrounding it is a bunch of bullshit but that's me. ... to me it is identical to smoking some weed and suddenly seeing it
How do you reach such a conclusion? On prejudice, preconceived thought or your own experience?
I took weed, coke, hero, speed... and I can tell you that this has nothing to do with meditation. Drugs draw you away from reality, meditation bring you closer to it.
If you're refuse to learn from others and choose to stay blind, I can't do nothing for you ! You're like those who think Satanism is BS but never opened TSB.

 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
The crap-medium comment was not directed at you
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
Medium: Hmm I sense something out there, it's brown and warm... might it be related to you?
Probably we don't speak the same English...


 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
And no I don't consider everything occult as bullshit but honestly, most yes ... The second part of the SB is something I considered a waste of time, paper and money.
At least it's frank, but then refrain giving you opinion on thing you don't care, not interested in and don't know.
You look more having science as your religion than Satanism.

 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
They go way beyond linguistic limitations and can be potent in visual versions, think symbolry, too.
Blind again?
 Quote:
To me memes use language (oral, written, body language...) for transmitting from brain to brain

Would you be more happy with this phrasing (the sense does not change) "To me, meme are transmitted from brain to brain by the mean of language (written, oral, body language, symbols...".

Happy now ?

Top
#15173 - 11/30/08 03:04 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
"Easy, you take 2 persons, 1 with those psychological problems and one healthy normal person. From both persons you take some blood and run some test for hormone balances. Also; put them in a chair put some electrodes on their brain and start analysing brain patterns. You'll quite quickly see the chemical imbalances.."

Nope, im sorry but that would not work. My whole point was that any notions of a chemical imbalance is BS.

I believe you never read a book about human biology? My description works perfectly. Every emotion is triggered by hormones within our body. Every tought and idea is triggered by VERY small electrical pulses within our brain and by hormones. Every mental disorder can be detected by studying brain activity and putting some test on blood. Telling things as "chemical imbalances is bullshit" are the real bullshit. On the other hand if you tell me that 'energetic balances within our spiritual body and or Chakra's ar in imbalance' I would have agreed. However the scientist in me says you are quite wrong (at least with the knowledge I have know.. it can change if you can proove me I'm wrong.).
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#15174 - 11/30/08 03:16 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Fabiano]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
You shouldn't get hostile with me mate, if hostility is a dude, I'm his mother in law.

That being said, if you quote your own replies without mentioning what you are quoting for what reason, it can't be called different than confusing. I should not feel inclined to start puzzling before I can reply.

Now, it is my right to think meditation is crap and how I came to that conclusion is because of a reason I might know but didn't share, so all your assumptions are rather silly. I get the impression I touched something holy. I'm sorry that you are emotionally touched because I consider something crap which you clearly embrace so intensely.
You seem to forget, or don't know, that your consciousness might be nothing more than a user interface to cope with reality and that in its case, input data = output data. In no way you can escape your user interface and perceive reality beyond its limitations. You can sit on a rock for 40 days and nothing you learned is more than perception and as I stated before perception is everything but does not necesarilly equal reality. You can never perceive reality simply because the tool to cope with reality is of a simplified nature and not necessarily representing reality as is.

So please, don't go teachery on me on this one. I'm not here to take lessons and at my age it can be assumed I have made my mind up a long time ago on things. If you are however capable of explaining how you can grasp reality better under meditation than me through critical thinking, I'm willing to consider your explanation but I fear you'll always encounter the same problem and won't be able to go beyond experiences, which are as valid as mine under drugs or by holding my breath for minutes.

Now, please don't accuse me of being a scientific or rational satanist, I might -even with my lack of embracing the magickal part- know a thing or two more about it than you. I might accuse you of being a victim of the satanic virus and acting not too different from the period you were embracing god. My Satanism isn't a crutch, so don't bother acting as if, else I might be inclined to do the same and it will lead nowhere.

Now if you want to continue this, keep in mind that nothing is holy to me and I will speak my opinion upon it, if you like it or not. If you want to talk occult and not be bothered by me, go to the occult section, don't act as if I can't argue it here. And don't invoke higher powers like 'Satanism and occult' or 'rules and regulations' like people often do when they get too emotionally fragile after a reply. I expect people to have a backbone and able to cope with opposition.

Thanks,

D.

Top
#15175 - 11/30/08 03:38 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Oh and this is too hilarious to be true:

 Quote:
Originally Posted By: Diavolo
The crap-medium comment was not directed at you
Originally Posted By: Diavolo
Medium: Hmm I sense something out there, it's brown and warm... might it be related to you?
Probably we don't speak the same English...


It's not because I use you in something I write that I imply the poster I reply to. In this case, if you pay attention, you see that I start the sentence with medium:, maybe indicating that I'm using a fictious scenario where a medium is sensing energy of the victim that uses her services. The fact that you think I'm implying you are crap is humoring me but totally not intended. If I think you are crap, I will clearly state you are crap.

Again, perception is everything but not necessarily equals reality.

D.

Top
#15176 - 11/30/08 03:40 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
I may not be a moderator or someone in power here but, I would like to ask to stay polite and neutral to each other. One of the rules was "no flaming on each other". This is quite leaning towards this.

 Quote:
So please, don't go teachery on me on this one. I'm not here to take lessons and at my age it can be assumed I have made my mind up a long time ago on things. If you are however capable of explaining how you can grasp reality better under meditation than me through critical thinking, I'm willing to consider your explanation but I fear you'll always encounter the same problem and won't be able to go beyond experiences, which are as valid as mine under drugs or by holding my breath for minutes.

You know Diavolo, a far more better method I use for grasping reality is by UNDERGOING it. It is far more better then critical thinking and meditation. However these 2 can be used (just like you said) to get different perceptions of reality, but this doesn't imply it will be reality.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#15177 - 11/30/08 03:49 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Picunnus]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
 Originally Posted By: Picunnus
The whole software issue was explained to me long ago in a way that stuck in my mind - matter precedes mind. Without matter, there can be no mind.


Perhaps “sentience” would be a better word to use than “consciousness” when discussing this matter. On a larger scale I cannot say that I agree that “mind” cannot exist without physical matter. To me it seems more logical that physical matter merely harnesses and exerts some control over various types of energy, that which it is compatible to harness. The most basic example would be remote controls or wireless phones. Energy is being harnessed to send and control information. We cannot see the energy that is being sent from the remote control to the television, but it’s clearly there. There may be different ways to pick up on the energy itself via various technologies, even if any of our human senses cannot detect that energy.

As for the standpoint some people may have that “you can’t see it if it isn’t there, therefore it must not exist,” I would challenge anyone on how to go about proving the existence of wind. It’s clear that wind exists as an atmospheric phenomenon, but wind in and of itself is something you cannot see. You can see the effects of wind, you can see the way it moves things around you, but how would a scientist go about explaining an invisible force? It’s so obvious that it exists, it’s been defined and labeled and accepted as a proven part of the world, but is still invisible to us. Knowing that I find it hard to accept the notion that it would actually be improbable that there are other things out there which in and of themselves are invisible to us.

Top
#15178 - 11/30/08 03:50 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Dimitri, I am polite.

You are right that undergoing or experience is a valid technique, if not best, in certain situations. But again, experience is how you interpret it. We can both have the same experience and have a different conclusion. I'm not a relativist, there is an objective reality out there. Outside of the field of experience there are different techniques to come to the same conclusions. Some might work for some and some might not work and some are nothing but form. If you'd go through philosophy, you'll notice a lot is closely in touch with what is stated in some science or even in lore, mysticism and occult but you have to dismantle the form and go to the essence.

D.

Top
#15179 - 11/30/08 04:04 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
We can both have the same experience and have a different conclusion.

Correct, our conclusion depends on our perception on reality and to every human that part is different. Moslty because of the "software" being programmed within our brain since out birth. But still because it is software it can be modified, only with more difficulties because it is standarised.

 Quote:
I'm not a relativist, there is an objective reality out there. Outside of the field of experience there are different techniques to come to the same conclusions.

True, to quote something from quantummechaniques wich must not be forget also: 'there is an objective reality, but we can't simply gasp it simply because of the fact we are in some sort of way subjectif'.

 Quote:
If you'd go through philosophy, you'll notice a lot is closely in touch with what is stated in some science or even in lore, mysticism and occult but you have to dismantle the form and go to the essence.

Doing that most of the time, I simply couldn't imagine how much things really could be connected with each other and how cryptic they have been written.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#15180 - 11/30/08 04:24 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Cayce has been debunked as a fraud for a really long time.
http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Cayce,%20Edgar.html


James Randi makes a living telling cynics exactly what they want to hear. He plays the devil’s advocate and spends his life on one side of the fence. He makes a living at this, so his opinions are as biased as any hardcore religious nut. It’s entertainment with one form of shock value, much like what Criss Angel does. I don’t find him to be a reliable source to any degree. With regard to his million dollar psychic challenge, why would anyone subject themselves to something they know beforehand to be biased, why enter a contest that you know to be rigged against you? I’d be interested in hearing any of your Edgar Cayce “debunking” sources that come from people who make a living at something other than simply making people look bad for entertainment and profit.

The link that you provided proves nothing. It’s nice however that they mentioned the fact that Edgar Cayce never charged anyone anything for his services. In fact, his health took a toll for it and any donations that were given helped feed his family, the rest was used to set up a non-profit educational foundation. If he really set out to be a con artist he would have been rich with the interest he generated during his life, he would have turned the poor away and really not have cared about sick people dying. Regardless of what you think about his abilities, he spent his life helping people, not hurting them.

There was all of ONE passage quoted in that link that was cited for not making sense. This does not prove anything about his overall level of accuracy. The quote: “There will be the upheavals in the Arctic and in the Antarctic that will make for the eruption of volcanoes in the Torrid areas, and there will be the shifting then of the poles - so that where there have been those of a frigid or semi-tropical [sic] will become the more tropical, and moss and fern will grow. And these will begin in those periods in '58 to '98.”

This sounds to me exactly like global warming. If you’ve watched An Inconvenient Truth you’ll probably remember Al Gore talking about the industrial era being the time that began to change the balance of the Earth as we know it due to such a huge increase in pollution. Did that not begin in the fifties?

Top
#15181 - 11/30/08 04:33 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I'm not going into the debunk of it all but if someone wants to call his theory "scientific" he has to follow some patterns to provide evidence that his method is really scientific.

What Randi does, call him biased or not, is provide people claiming things, a scientific frame to provide that evidence.
If people are really convinced that what they do or can is true, I see no reason why they wouldn't quickly snatch the million dollar bonus.

The accusations that things are biased and that it is a set-up can't be explained in another way to me as 'backing off gracefully'.

D.

Top
#15182 - 11/30/08 04:55 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dimitri]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
Thanks for your intervention Dimitry. It shows youngers can sometimes be wiser than olders (me included, I'm 41).

Critical thinking, meditation and experiences are complementary. I see meditation as an experience of the reality. They're things to learn from looking at your own mind.

However, meditation experiences is much more hard to express with words than rational thinking, due to its nature.

On way of perceiving the reality, I reported a "direct perception" experience about my pregnant sister. Blsk reported similar experiences. (see here ) I could explain it by something alike shunting the frontal cortex and having a "direct access" to subcouncious. I know it can look as faith and thus subject to criticsm here, but it's faith in yourself. Nothing to do with beliefs you get from others and swallow without any critical spirit or rational thinking.

Top
#15183 - 11/30/08 05:10 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
I'm not going into the debunk of it all but if someone wants to call his theory "scientific" he has to follow some patterns to provide evidence that his method is really scientific.


“The information in a great many different Edgar Cayce readings describes a world of thought forms, thought patterns, which are built up by individual and mass thought, planning and purpose held at the mind level. This thought world is a world of matter, but matter in an energy pattern which can be molded by mind. To a sensitive, a prophet, this world may seem as real as the three dimensional world. This thought world may be the world which is seen in precognition and prophecy. The action of will controls which thought pattern or thought form is drawn into three-dimensional expression. Will is free but is also conditioned at any given point of expression in matter at the earth plane level.” -- from Venture Inward: The Edgar Cayce Story by Hugh Lynn Cayce


I wasn’t getting into the science of Edgar Cayce, just pointing out that he demonstrated some amazing abilities while he was alive and that he used those abilities to help a lot of people. Perhaps one day science will find a definitive way to record and measure energy that has left the body. There was a time in history when the telephone was inconceivable, the internet was inconceivable, etc. but human evolution and the quest for new discoveries has always seemed to prevail, making things that are now a part of our daily lives seem almost trivial when they once were unimaginable.

Top
#15184 - 11/30/08 05:24 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dimitri]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
There has been lots on studies done on the myth of chemical imbalances, here is just one: http://thehealthyskeptic.org/the-chemical-imbalance-myth/
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#15186 - 11/30/08 05:25 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Like I said, I'm not going to debunk Gayce, what might seem incredible to some might look insane to others. I'm on the insane side of the fence for reasons that are credible to me.

Maybe science might indeed one day open possibilities that are unknown to us nowadays, maybe they might also reaffirm old beliefs but it is as likely that it'll destroy any argument for them.

Still, until science can provide a decent argument, believing things unsupported by evidence must be considered as an act of faith. To me, there is no evidence, no supporting credible theory and no experience so I can't but conclude that it doesn't exist. Even if it exists out there without me being able to percieve it at any level and it remaining unknown, it equals non-existance.

D.

Top
#15187 - 11/30/08 05:28 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Fabiano]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
 Originally Posted By: Fabiano
On way of perceiving the reality, I reported a "direct perception" experience about my pregnant sister. Blsk reported similar experiences. I could explain it by something alike shunting the frontal cortex and having a "direct access" to subcouncious. I know it can look as faith and thus subject to criticsm here, but it's faith in yourself.


What you are describing in its most basic form is a level of higher awareness; however, it is a higher awareness of that which is around you making a connection to that which is in you. There have been numerous studies done on certain twins and the unusual bond they share, their ability to know when the other is experiencing something bad even when they are continents apart. If this is not the energy of the self experiencing an interconnection with a higher or different form of energy (and this happens so many times that it’s unrealistic to rule out coincidence), then how might one explain it?

You can have two cordless phones exchanging data on opposite ends of the world with a delay of just a few seconds, proving that the physical body can create sound converted into an information energy which is then dispatched into the atmosphere and harnessed again by another device which converts that information energy back into sound. Your television works in the same manner, scrambling and dispatching information into energy and then reconverting it back into its original source. If you look at your body as a device and your sister’s body as a device with the information energy being relayed between the two, it explains what you are describing.

Top
#15189 - 11/30/08 05:48 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: "Fabiano"
Difficult to argue without giving a little IT lesson indeed. I might be view as off topic but I can’t argue without it.

I highly doubt there is anything you could teach me about IT unless you are a master programmer. You are correct what follows this is off topic, and completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Software is something hardware DOES. You have failed to argue against this point.
 Quote:

The medium Dan was looking for is unproven but at least accepted by those believing in magic...

Incorrect! The Medium I was referring to was a medium for consciousness to continue after death. What you are doing is no different than what Miss De Sade is doing, equivocation. Energy transmission does not imply afterlife. Apples and oranges.

 Originally Posted By: "Tala De Sade"

James Randi makes a living telling cynics exactly what they want to hear. He plays the devil’s advocate and spends his life on one side of the fence

It is obvious to me that you're beliefs are faith based. Hell, you even used the old creationist canard about 'you can't see the wind, therefore immortal soul'

I will ask this one more time; What evidence do you have to support any of this mystical minded hocus pocus you have presented? Dropping the names of 'psychics' isn't helping your case at all. Where is the actual evidence? That you believe so strongly in the absence of any credible reason to do so is further evidence of your faith.

And to re-iterate AGAIN; Why is it that all this afterlife/psychic claptrap has never made it into the realm of mainstream science?
I can see two possible conclusions.
1: A large scale international conspiracy to keep this knowledge out of the public eye.
2: It isn't scientific, and is therefore ignored by science.

Why do I think you are going to choose door number 1?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15191 - 11/30/08 06:18 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
I’ve always looked at everything around me as being energy-based, and if you look into quantum psychics at all there is a lot of evidence already out there proving this to be fact. Even our bodies have their own unique electrical impulses. If those electrical impulses can communicate with one another, I personally don’t find it far-fetched that they can make a connection on some level to an external source or even be converted into an external source once the physical shell of its perception becomes useless. As my fingers are typing the letters on my keyboard, I’m perceiving the computer to be a separate entity, which for all intents and purposes of the human being it is. Both are energy-based and vibrating at different frequencies.

That being said quantum mechanics tells us that not only when the vibratory energy is examined at the most microscopic level there is no separation, but also that the energy of thought has been proven to influence the vibration of that which we are surrounded by through a signal emitted by our brain (scientifically speaking an energy wave called quanta which holds energy packets which behave in a manner similar to particles). The body is like a conductor in which our sentient consciousness (the real essence of who we are) is harnessed by and experienced in the physical realm through. Again I would draw the comparison between a cellular phone being able to harness information energy. If your cell phone is turned off the information does not become less real, it simply cannot be received/harnessed by that cell phone (much like the human body being turned off at death). The phone is geared to a specific signal (your phone number) much like your physical body is geared to the energy of your sentient consciousness which allows it to be harnessed, translated, experienced through the senses.

Top
#15193 - 11/30/08 07:00 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
My beliefs are not faith-based, they are logic-based. That is the manner in which I approach all aspects of my life in how I choose to perceive my surroundings, by that which has proven to be the most logical to me. I have always defined myself as an open-minded skeptic which is why I’m just as interested in hearing opinions that contradict my own as I am in hearing things that support it. That being said I also have to acknowledge that every individual has experienced different things and reached different conclusions in their lives. We can’t all expect that to share the same logic since we will never all have the same experiences.

To be frank, and this is just speaking on a general note, I think that most people find it easier to wander through life fearing only the immediate consequences and not much caring to find an overall purpose. The suggestion that they will retain some memory of past lifetime experiences makes them uncomfortable because it suggests that they must at some point find meaning in things which they feel is beyond their comprehension, or things that they would just rather not think about. Most people find it easier to either remain ignorant or seek blind comfort in a religion that tells them everything they’ve ever done will be forgiven, therefore they can do whatever they want as long as they say they’re sorry afterwards. I’ve never taken either path. I’ve never found anything uncomfortable about the idea of life after death in whatever form it may take, so I think that the lack of discomfort simply allows me to think about and analyze the matter to a more extensive degree.

With regard to your question about the lack of psychic information in mainstream science: When does anything taboo ever make it into the mainstream? Countless books have been written on the matter, whether or not you consider that to be mainstream is up to you. It’s still a taboo topic and it’s still something that’s lacking in technological advancement. Numerous paranormal researchers have written books and papers about the various methods they employ, one of the best known I think would be How to Hunt Ghosts by Joshua P. Warren:

Warren, president of a paranormal research team, is at pains to distance himself from “wackos” and “charlatans“; he insists that paranormal research is a legitimate science (indeed, he says, in its pursuit of the unknown, “all science is a form of paranormal research“). Amidst metaphysical rumination about death, time and the mind-body problem, he comes up with an almost plausible theory of ghosts: they are the remains of our “unique energy bodies” that manifest themselves through “free-floating static electrical charges.” This framework helps him validate ghost lore via scientific terms; for example, ghosts are most active after dark when Earth’s magnetosphere is least distorted, he says. His practical ghost-hunting advice runs the gamut, from staffing (a 10-person research team is right for the average house) to liability waivers to PR (ghosts may enhance their outlines for photos if asked). Most important is a panoply of high- and not so high-tech gadgets, including audio recorders, night-vision scopes, infrared video cameras, electro-static generators and dowsing rods to capture every trace of the spectral evanescences under investigation. The surveillance apparatus is needed, according to Warren, to provide “objective evidence” that can “rule out conventional phenomena, leaving only anomalous activity.”

Top
#15198 - 11/30/08 07:33 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Miss De Sade,

 Quote:
I’ve never found anything uncomfortable about the idea of life after death in whatever form it may take, so I think that the lack of discomfort simply allows me to think about and analyze the matter to a more extensive degree.

This just means you are like 90% of people out there. There is a theory that god-belief/superstition of this kind is fairly natural to us, an evolved mechanism. It is a very rare person that is not inclined to take on these sorts of beliefs.
 Quote:

We can’t all expect that to share the same logic since we will never all have the same experiences.

Just what do you think logic means anyway? I don't think it means what you think it does. Logic is a method, not a set of conclusions. To be precise, logic is the study of the principles of correct reasoning. You have yet to employ any.

Look, I know where you are coming from. I find paranormal research interesting too. I do think the mind is capable of things that are not yet explained. I have had experiences that lead me to believe the phenomenon known as 'ghosts' is real, and I have also had very convincing personal experiences in the field of long distance thought/energy transmissions. What I will not do is make a gigantic leap and start making all sorts of assumptions about the nature of my experiences past what I can actually validate. This is logic.

Where we seem to part company is that I will not let this honest skeptical inquiry degenerate into a mess of unconnected and unexamined beliefs. I think it does a disservice to the people that are actually trying to look at things from a reasonable and scientific point of view.

The real answers lay in an understanding of biology and physics that we just don't possess yet. Maybe one day we will, maybe by keeping an open yet skeptical mind we may one day unlock these mysteries, and move them from the realm of magic and into the realm of science. That will be a great thing.

But looking to pseudoscience and bullshit artists for real answers will not yield and real knowledge. Only real science can do that.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15210 - 11/30/08 10:21 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
 Quote:
It is a very rare person that is not inclined to take on these sorts of beliefs.


Unlike you, I have had a lot of experiences in getting to know people and finding that a lot of them are not as comfortable with the idea of death and the prospects of what if anything comes afterward as you would suggest most people are. I have also had many experiences with dying people, people who thought little of the matter throughout almost all of their lives and then became almost obsessed with understanding what was going to happen to them. I’ve also had experiences with legitimate psychics and have been awed by the specific nature and accuracy of the things they were able to convey. Those are my personal experiences, and over many years of observation my “correct reasoning” as you put it has led to the formulation of my opinions. People are only able to “correctly reason” anything, no matter what the subject, based on the knowledge they have accumulated through personal experience. Such is the nature of life.


 Quote:
I have had experiences that lead me to believe the phenomenon known as 'ghosts' is real, and I have also had very convincing personal experiences in the field of long distance thought/energy transmissions.


How would you go about explaining your experiences of these things then?


 Quote:
What I will not do is make a gigantic leap and start making all sorts of assumptions about the nature of my experiences past what I can actually validate.


I’ve never made any gigantic leaps in assumption about anything. I’ve reasoned that the nature of who we are is energy-based and that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it merely evolves.

Top
#15214 - 11/30/08 10:51 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

Unlike you, I have had a lot of experiences in getting to know people and finding that a lot of them are not as comfortable with the idea of death and the prospects of what if anything comes afterward as you would suggest most people are.

Well, that's just it. We at some point in our history became smart enough to become aware of our own mortality, our own impending demise. It could be argued that this 'god part of the brain' developed as a psychological defense against this apprehension.

I did not suggest in any way that 'most people are comfortable' with the idea of death, just that most find it comforting to take on belief about continuance, to alleviate this discomfort.
 Quote:

I’ve also had experiences with legitimate psychics and have been awed by the specific nature and accuracy of the things they were able to convey.

Most people that seek out advice from 'psychics' will indeed be convinced.The very fact that they are seeking out this sort of thing in the first place makes them inclined to believe that it works already, and cold reading can be very convincing in the hands of an expert con artist. Again, if there was science behind it there would be scientific data to back it, and there just isn't.
 Quote:

How would you go about explaining your experiences of these things then?

This is not meant to be offensive, but this is the exact same question christians ask when you tell them you don't believe that god created the universe. The fact is we don't have the data to 'know' where the universe came from, but we can be pretty damn sure the creationist account isn't true. We don't have all the available data to know 100%, but we do have enough to formulate reasonable theories.

My case is the same in that I know I had the experiences, but I do not know what caused them. Jumping to conclusions that fly in the face of all the science we DO have is rarely a good idea, nor does it lead to anything productive. But to answer your question, I have two pet theories.

1: I through the power of my own mind caused the manifestations that I witnessed. This would seem to be the most plausible, but there were several other people that witnessed similar things, and I don't find it likely that I caused all of those manifestations. There is the possibility of group hysteria, but the incidents were separate.

2: We only have 5 senses, which evolved randomly, with which to gather data about out surroundings. I find the idea that we just happened to develop the means to experience reality in it's entirety to be very remote. This leaves a very good probability that there is more going on around us than we have the means to experience. I think perhaps there may be other 'forms' of life, if you can even call it life. Not enough data!
I find this theory to be infinitely more probable than the effects of the brain existing with no brain, which is the common assumption. Why does it have to be dead people?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15215 - 12/01/08 01:06 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
 Quote:
I highly doubt there is anything you could teach me about IT unless you are a master programmer. You are correct what follows this is off topic, and completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Software is something hardware DOES. You have failed to argue against this point.


It's not reciproc Dan, I wouldn't dare to say I know everthing about IT and probably they're things you know and I don't. IT is so vast.

But for your information, I wrote hundred thousands lines of code in my life. Now I'm steering analysts which are themselves explaining to master programers what they have to code.

I invite you to read again my post as you seem still not able to make the distinction between a software and an algorithm.

That being said, I'm starting to be bothered with this thread and have the impression to waste my time.

Top
#15218 - 12/01/08 02:16 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
I think what it boils down to between the two of us is a difference in experience and thus a difference in the conclusions we have each arrived at. I could offer various comparisons and illustrations, but I think what you’re looking for is a level of science and research which has yet to come to fruition in mainstream science. I personally have had more experiences and absorbed more information that would lead me to conclude that our energy/sentience does survive the death of the physical vessel, than I have experienced things which would support the opposite conclusion. If things should happen to reverse themselves I wouldn’t have a problem in changing my mind. But again, I’m drawing on my own unique experiences to form that conclusion and wouldn’t expect anyone else to. It is the burden and the blessing of individuality.
Top
#15227 - 12/01/08 07:06 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
In any question of the existence of some kind of intelligence or "spirit" remaining after death, there is a necessary element of faith, for obviously, no true PROOF can be given on either side. Certainly there is a rich tradition of anecdotal "evidence" in the existence of an after-life experience. Cultures draw from the wreckage of the past to build the essence of their futures, just as the greatest cities of the world are built upon the ashes of those that came before. The difference is that in the case of cities, brick and mortar can be proven and touched by all, whereas in the case of the survival of one's essence... call it soul, spirit, ether... all that can even possibly be felt is the gossamer fabric of "faith."

It's natural in human existence to want to believe that we are "worthy" of more than we are permitted to experience in our "four score years and ten" allotted to us on the planet. For many, it's a reward and a goal... makes sense, as man is at base a creature bred for competition and survival. Some see it as a cleansing and an ever evolving state of perfection toward godhead... makes sense, as who wouldn't want to have the chance to keep getting better and better until someday you're perfect? Thousands of ideas, and thousands of reasons why one would want them to exist are there for the choosing, but there are those (and in simple numerical ratio to those who choose to believe a small number) who find that each and every reason that one can give FOR the exceptance of an essence beyond the grave is somehow faulty. They demand "proof."

While we can argue the number of angels that will fit on the head of a pin, we can never prove their existence, let alone the validity of even the concept of their existence. All beliefs must at some time be challenged, even within oneself, so that popular delusion, and indeed SELF delusion is held in check, that we as humans can progress and grow in intellect and in knowledge gained through introspection and demostrable proof that what we "believe" is actual truth.

So while we can mathematically figure out the speed of subatomic particles, the angle at which one can suspend the moon from a beam in space, the number of lightyears from here to a supernova on the other side of the galaxy and many other things, we are at a roadblock with a concept such as this for the simple reason that there are no set metrics from which we can base our arguements, other than faith, and faith is matter without substance, We have no set point except highly individual conjecture...FAITH.

Now, I find no personal truth in the existence of anything, other than my decaying body or ashes wafting on the breeze. I have no need for the belief in a "soul" or an "eternal essence" or any other name you might care to apply. It's a personally liberating truth that allows me to totally disregard any "eternal delights" in favor of experiencing THIS time and finding what physical, emotional and/or monetary rewards I can while I'm alive. It's a big part of what makes me ME as a Satanist. but ultimately cannot prove to anyone with a belief in that "soul or eternal essence" that I am RIGHT. They have the same faith in their "truth," and no matter how many mathematical theories, anecdotal evidences, scriptural references, etc., that they can come up with, ALL boil down to the exact same basis for my belief. Faith.

If there was some tangible and undeniable truth that could be demostrated either way, my logical mind would be intellectually bound to explore it. But short of dying and finding out first hand, none of us is likely to ever have that element of truth within our grasp. The best we can ever hope for in the debate of existence beyond the physical plane is detent.

_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#15231 - 12/01/08 07:16 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Picunnus Offline
member


Registered: 11/29/08
Posts: 101
Loc: Ohio, USA
I think we are picking at different points here. I was attempting to address an earlier expressed issue of whether consciousness can exist after the physical body is gone. I am not disputing the possibility of some force that can extend beyond the physical boundaries of the mind - like a cell phone perhaps, as you suggest. I am saying, after the cell phone disintegrates, what is there to harness the force?
_________________________
WWAD?

Top
#15247 - 12/01/08 11:32 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Personally I don't know how anyone could make a faith based belief in souls and afterlife co-exist with a religion/philosophy of which the very essence is opposed to these things.

If you want to believe by faith, fine. But how does that faith coexist with Satanism? As Jake so eloquently pointed out..Satanism is about the here and now. Afterlife is nothing but spiritual pipedreams that distracts you from THIS, our ONLY life.

But aside from that, what do I care what other people believe? The only reason I even jumped into this discussion was this, from the original post.

 Originally Posted By: "Tala"

I’m also curious if there are any people who would define themselves as Satanists but would refuse to believe that consciousness survives death at all, despite the resounding scientific evidence that exists in the world today.

I have yet to see even a stitch of 'scientific evidence', resounding or otherwise, or even one other Satanist that believes in an afterlife.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15250 - 12/01/08 11:48 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
There has been lots on studies done on the myth of chemical imbalances, here is just one: http://thehealthyskeptic.org/the-chemical-imbalance-myth/

You make my mind wander a bit. But still I'd say the skepticals mis-used a bit of the definition. To me chemmical-imbalance means that certain hormones and other body-controlling-particles vary in number within the whole body. You can say that our body is in a continous state of balance wich is quite normal. From what I read, those people took the words a bit litterary. They thought that certain hormones would be in "great" concentrations within our blood, thus causing an "imbalance" wich gives certain mental disorders. So I think they have just used a part of the whole definition to suit there own needs.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#15268 - 12/01/08 02:39 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
There are a couple of problems with it that bugged me in the past. When I was young I did find Buddhism rather interesting and the Dalai Lama seemed like a cool guy. Nowadays I think it is a pile of parasitic shit and the head dude smiles that much he's probably sponsored by Prozac.
Now, a lot of those funny yellow guys said a lot of smart shit but if you're sitting on your ass 20 hours a day, it would be a damn depressing if you didn't come up with a thing or two.
Their reincarnation stuff is pretty similar to this all.

Anyways, the problem with consciousness being disconnected from humans triggers more questions than it can explain.

If consciousness can be energy related, and we're not thinking about creators, how could it evolve? In space-time, we mean jack-shit, so in that whole period that there was no intelligent life, was there consciousness? Why would there be consciousness because the lack of intelligent life seems to make it so useless.
If consciousness can sidestep death and cling to energy, it should be assumed that consciousness is a seperate entity and was always out there. If consciousness is a new product, why would it suddenly cling to energy? About all behavior in QM is about as old as the universe and none suddenly changes. Most laws of physics are static since time X and don't change suddenly, so if consciousness is a new thing all odds are against it being able to cling.
So the first problem would be; what did put consciousness there and for what reason?

Second, at what stage did consciousness decide to infect life and what is its routine in that selection? How does it do it and why does it do it to whom?
Was homo australopithecus worthy of consciousness or did it take until a later step in the evolution. Are great apes selected as carriers. Birds, rabbits, ants, bacteria? Trees or grass?
How does consciousness get into people. It is assumed that babies up to a certain age are not conscious in the sense of having a personality. Language probably triggers the development of consciousness. It's highly unlikely that consciousness waits out there until we say mommy for the first time. You'd have to add a lot of other things to consciousness for that all to work. If it is capable of all those things, it starts to appear godly.

I find it all highly unlikely and when using Occam's razor seriously on this, isn't the easiest explanation the one where consciouness develops naturally in people and dies naturally with them? It at least doesn't keep popping up new questions all the time.

D.

Top
#15273 - 12/01/08 04:19 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
 Quote:
In space-time, we mean jack-shit, so in that whole period that there was no intelligent life, was there consciousness? Why would there be consciousness because the lack of intelligent life seems to make it so useless.


As your questions are theoretical so shall be my answers. Merely speculation, open to be proven right or wrong. The energy within the human body is limited to the experience of space and time because its vessel dwells within the realm of that reality. I do think it’s likely that this is not the only dimension in the whole of the universe. Furthermore its obvious that this is not the only planet or galaxy in the universe, there are others out there capable of sustaining physical life akin to our own. So even when this planet was in a phase of not being able to support intelligent life, there were others that were.


 Quote:
If consciousness can sidestep death and cling to energy, it should be assumed that consciousness is a seperate entity and was always out there. If consciousness is a new product, why would it suddenly cling to energy?


The reality our physical bodies dwell in is limited by the senses it has evolved to contain. Animals are capable of perceiving many things that humans are not, and there are just as many examples of those with a lower level of perception. The body of a human is limited to the confines of a time/space dimension. Energy is not, and without being in a pure-energy state, it is absolutely impossible to know how it experiences what we call time or sentience or anything else for that matter. I don’t think that consciousness/energy is a new product that suddenly transforms into the non-physical, I think it just becomes localized there for a temporary period and existed prior to life on this planet. Merely a matter of speculation, but I think it is our nature to seek knowledge on what some might call a journey to obtain perfection. The only way to do that is through the diversity of experience. Life in this body is but one experience within myriads.

As to the specifics of intelligent life, I think it is something that science has the potential to demystify at some point in the future, but at this point in our evolution cannot possibly be known. I’m sure there are a lot of interesting studies and theories and papers out there. It’s human nature to keep on asking questions. Perhaps science will reach some conclusion in our lifetimes, perhaps humanity has already set into motion the downfall of this planet and we’ll be lucky if it’s even able to comfortably sustain life a hundred years from now. We’ll just have to wait until we get there.

Top
#15279 - 12/01/08 05:35 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dimitri]
ZephyrGirl Offline
R.I.P.
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 706
Loc: Adelaide Australia
I must admit, I have read this thread with much interest. By the time I came across it, it was some 4 or 5 pages long and alot of points I have gone to respond to have been well covered by someone.

And the wackjob that thinks chemical imbalance isn't real, well best to ignore the people that are about to explode into a mist of conspiricy. We have seem many of them turn the last corner away from reality on this forum.

However, I will add a little to the discussion. As most of you know, I have a terminal illness. So of course, death is a subject much on my mind in the last 3 years since my diagnosis.

As much as I would love there to be some sort of happy ending (especially when it comes to my childrens thoughts), I haven't been able to experience anything which can let me beleive in an afterlife that isn't a memory in someone elses existance. To that extent, I am hoping somewhat that some people here will remember me and my thoughts for some time (until the forum crashes again at least LOL).

I however have a friend who works in the local morgue. She is a pathologist and gets to work with the bodies, from booking them in to the autopsies. I have asked her what her thoughts on the matter are (being she is dealing with those killed in some kind of trauma, generally not heart attacks and the like).

She said to me that in her opinion (oh yeah, she's a wiccan), there is absolutley nothing there.

She said there was once that she felt the need to talk to a youngish guy that killed himself, to tell him that he that it was a really silly thing to do, she's not sure why she felt the need. But other than that, she has NEVER witnessed ANYTHING that has made her think that there is any 'soul' left (and certainly not in a state we could comunicate or relate to) with.

The only logical argument I can come up with for a continuance of energy in LAD, is that our actual atoms will once again become something else, but as Dan and Jake have stated, I also cannot see any way in which any energy they might produce as a coherant form in the human body and brain, could stay together as some sort other cohesive form that has a memory of it's prestate.

Dan, welcome to the bullshit club. I am a great bullshit detector, not so much the exterminator, maybe we can join forces and take over the world...........oh, just joking (for the OTHERS that might think I'm serious, I'm sure you get it Dan).

Zeph


Edited by ZephyrGirl (12/01/08 05:37 PM)
_________________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass -
It's about learning to dance in the rain.


Top
#15281 - 12/01/08 06:49 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: ZephyrGirl]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
We can be the new simon and simon! (or possibly pinky and the brain. We can flip for brain)


\:\)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15282 - 12/01/08 06:58 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
ZephyrGirl Offline
R.I.P.
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 706
Loc: Adelaide Australia
I call heads, you can have your brain 'down there' if you like. LOL as long as we're not sharing a brain. ;\)
_________________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass -
It's about learning to dance in the rain.


Top
#15286 - 12/01/08 07:40 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: ZephyrGirl]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Not to worry. Most of my brains are 'down there', plus my head is certainly big enough for two. I know these things are true because people keep saying them!

Do you have Pinky and the Brain down in Oz?

_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15326 - 12/02/08 01:31 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: ZephyrGirl]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
 Quote:
She said to me that in her opinion (oh yeah, she's a wiccan), there is absolutley nothing there.


Theoretically, if a Wiccan is doing a ritual to pray to different goddesses to affect change, who exactly do they think they are praying to if not a sentient energy of some sort? Why spend all that time honoring different deities and looking for results in communing with them if you hold onto the belief that a sentient energy cannot exist? It’s quite the contradiction. Not that I believe in any Wiccan deities, I just find it interesting that someone who does can adhere to such contradiction.


 Quote:
She said there was once that she felt the need to talk to a youngish guy that killed himself, to tell him that he that it was a really silly thing to do, she's not sure why she felt the need. But other than that, she has NEVER witnessed ANYTHING that has made her think that there is any 'soul' left (and certainly not in a state we could comunicate or relate to) with.


I wouldn’t expect to receive any sort of information about consciousness survival from a dead body in the morgue. The body has obviously outlived its use, it’s a dead receptor in the process of decay. I’d think that a dead person would be more interested in what their loved ones are doing or proceeding to the next plain of existence. There’s a really good movie out there about necrophilia in the modern world, filmed through the perspective of one woman who happens to have this fetish, called Kissed. I don’t think having sex with dead people would turn most people on, but I liked the movie because it happened to be intelligent and offered a unique perspective that I had never seen anywhere else. It was just creepy enough to make it interesting.

Top
#15328 - 12/02/08 01:52 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Picunnus]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
 Originally Posted By: Picunnus
I am not disputing the possibility of some force that can extend beyond the physical boundaries of the mind - like a cell phone perhaps, as you suggest. I am saying, after the cell phone disintegrates, what is there to harness the force?


One of the things that I find interesting is the fact that we can see the light of stars that have long been dead. It just takes such a vast amount of time for the energy of that light to travel to a place where our eyes can see it after the star has burned out. I forget what the exact scientific term assigned to the phenomenon was, but there is information out there about radio transmissions from decades ago being picked up by satellite receptors orbiting the Earth. So it’s been proven that energy can exist beyond the realm of having a physical device to harness it. The light of burned-out stars would still be there, even if we chose never to look at the sky.

You’d have to have a more in-depth knowledge of quantum physics to understand how and where and in what directions energy can travel, and it would depend on the energy. Unused energy is reabsorbed to where it originated from. In the case of a burned out light bulb, for example. A light bulb being able to light up is dependent on two things. One, the correct physical components in working order; and two, a steady stream of electricity flowing to it (if you turn the light switch off, the electricity reverts back through your electrical wiring). So with regard to “harnessing the force,” there are other light bulbs out there and the electricity does not cease to exist, it merely becomes available to be harnessed by another light bulb.

Top
#15329 - 12/02/08 02:03 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
And what if I use a battery to make my lightbulb shine?

Humans are batteries.

D.

Top
#15330 - 12/02/08 02:28 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
And what if I use a battery to make my lightbulb shine?

The battery is made up of physical components which are only able to function for a period of time. You would have to have a more in-depth understanding of quantum physics to understand the reintegration of energy. Everything when reduced to its base composition is energy, vibrating at different levels. Energy can be changed but it can’t be destroyed.

Top
#15332 - 12/02/08 03:08 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
Everything when reduced to its base composition is energy, vibrating at different levels. Energy can be changed but it can’t be destroyed.

Also see string theory.
Pretty interesting subject, if someone is interested you should look up "Briane Greene". University professor in physics.

But even so, if we exist out of tiny energy "strings" or particles. Still things as telekinses is impossible. Why: well for several reasons.
1) The smallest thing we know untill now are quarks. These can't be indicated with special equipment but have recently been proven by mathematici.
2) If you think you can explain telekinetic gifts with strings of energy you are thinking wrong. These strings are quite small. How small? Billions of times smaller then the smallest atom we know. (Wich is Hydrogen).
3) Just as Aquino pointed out in one of his essays about psyops: we humans don't have an organ wich can generate enough energy to "send" a thought towards another person within his consiousnes without making a noise or writing it down. The energy acuired for doing this is far to great for any of our organs to produce. It is much more simplified by sending a letter or by telling so.


Edited by Dimitri (12/02/08 03:15 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#15335 - 12/02/08 03:52 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
No, I don't need to have a more in-depth understanding of QM. I see that argument frequently used in this conversation and you maybe don't realize but it is rather similar to the 'you do need to have a more in-depth understanding of the bible' I hear when having other debates. It's the same refering to a higher power and as in that case, the higher power doesn't prove neither gives evidence for the argument made.

The problem here is that QM nowhere does predictions regarding afterlife or funky things at a human level. You are looking at some behavior or a theory of one thing and setting up an imaginary link with something else.

In QM teleportation is possible but do you believe I can port up to NY by blinking? No you don't. Why is that behavior not possible and the one you prefer to be true is?

D.

Top
#15338 - 12/02/08 04:38 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
The original article plus references can be found at this link. It was written by someone more educated on than me on this, so I will leave it to what expertise science has developed on this matter to date. For everyone that has been asking for a more “scientific” approach...


SURVIVAL PHYSICS: INTRODUCTION

A major paradigm, accepted across all established scientific disciplines, states that mind and consciousness result from brain function alone. This means that mind must vanish at the instant of brain death, a conclusion totally at variance with the evidence. This evidence has been building for over a century and is now so firm as to effectively constitute totally convincing proof of survival. Roll and Zammit cover this aspect exhaustively.

The reason scientists in general go to great pains to discredit this evidence is because it conflicts with all theories physicists have so far developed. Until a major paradigm-shift in physics has occurred there can be no hope of any change of attitude. Hence it is of paramount importance that the flaws in existing physics are resolved so that it becomes extended to incorporate survival and other controversial phenomena.

This article shows how a successful search made to solve three difficulties in physics resulted in providing just such an extension. The resulting “Survival Physics” shows that, as a natural consequence of the mathematical logic, at least the sub-conscious mind is the true reality at the base of all that exists. Although the brain must die its exact copy lives on to be connected with another parallel universe. Built the same way as our own, these seem just as real as ours when the mind is in register.

THE PROBLEMS WITH PHYSICS

Theoretical physics has so far been unable to resolve three major difficulties. In consequence greater and greater sophistication in concepts and mathematical formalism has resulted, yet no solutions are yet within sight. Could it be that theorists are all leading each other into a blind alley so that a totally different approach is required? This article shows that when a return is made to the logic of common sense, in which only fairly elementary maths is required, a solution to all three problems appears simultaneously.

One problem concerns the big bang theory that purports to explain the creation of the universe from nothing. It is clearly flawed since it makes a major false prediction known as the “Cosmological Constant” (CC). Theorists are unable to switch off their creative explosion. To show how serious this is I quote the Nobel laureate, Steven Weinberg, who wrote in “Reviews of Modern Physics” January 1989 that this “represents a veritable crisis for physics”. Even today the situation remains unchanged after the 25 years of its existence. In 1987 this author realised his own expertise was potentially able to solve the difficulty. Unfortunately the second difficulty known as “wave-particle-duality” needed simultaneous resolution.

When matter is repeatedly divided the atom is eventually reached. Then further division shows this to constitute sub-atomic particles. Quantum theory is the study of the mechanics operating at this sub-microscopic level of reality. In the 1920’s it was discovered that at this level nothing moved as it does at the visible level. In fact motion seemed governed by a plan formed by interfering waves. If two pebbles are thrown into a pond simultaneously waves spread out in rings and the rings cross into each other creating a patch of rough water. This is the interference pattern characteristic of waves. At the quantum level, particles only appear where the wave amplitudes add up; none are seen where they cancel out. The conceptual difficulties are best illustrated by reading a book by David Deutsch called, “The Fabric of Reality” (Penguin 1998). He says the only possible interpretation requires the universe to split in two every time one of these particles has a choice of two ways to go. It involves an almost infinite set of universes existing in the same place each multiplying at an almost infinite rate! This is needed if consciousness is kept out of the solution. One of the original ideas from the 20’s, however, is called the “Copenhagen Interpretation”. This says that a particle only exists when an observer “collapses the wave function”. So this interpretation had already accepted consciousness to be involved in the creation of matter.

To me this meant that the quantum level had an unreal quality and had to be contrived by consciousness. There had to be a true reality at a deeper level having a structure able to evolve a conscious intelligence. It could not, therefore, operate on the wave mechanics of the quantum level but needed to exist to make those waves. It was more likely to operate on the classical mechanics found satisfactory for explaining how stars and planets moved: “Classical Mechanics”.

This introduced the third difficulty for which no resolution has emerged for over 70 years. Einstein’s theory called “General Relativity” (GR) is accepted as the best since it has survived almost every experimental check. Unfortunately it is incompatible with quantum theory. It was also impossible to apply it to solve the problem of the cosmological constant owing to the assumption that only motion relative to the observer existed. Now as objects are speeded up they gain energy of motion called “kinetic energy”. In relativity its value differs from one observer to another if the observers also see each other in motion. Consequently kinetic energy, according to GR, has to be regarded as illusory. To solve the problem of the CC kinetic energy had to be real. Consequently a new mechanics had to be derived. I had to be, not only compatible with quantum theory, but also had to match all the experimental checks that had elevated the status of GR to one of the two major achievements of 20’th century physics.

THE SOLUTION

To provide a satisfactory alternative to GR seemed to present a formidable obstacle since this had to be derived first. However, by applying the mechanical engineers logic of common sense a satisfactory new “Exact Classical Mechanics” (ECM) soon emerged. It matched all the data just as well as did relativity theory but had the advantage of starting out quantum compatible. It was first published in Russia in 1991 but can be found on the “Campaign for Philosophical Freedom” website of Michael Roll, very professionally organised by Paul Read.

ECM theory had all motion referred to the local background medium, to be called the “i-ther”. So now kinetic energy could be regarded as real. To enable a paradox free theory of creation from the zero energy state of nothingness to appear it was also necessary to extend the theory to yield an, “Opposed Energy Dynamics”. ECM theory yields Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 by a totally different method but without reference to relativity in any way. This equation shows that matter is made out of energy. So energy is the ultimate building substance of the universe of matter. Since matter had to emerge as a construct of the i-ther, this ultimate level of reality had also be made from the same stuff.

For energy to appear from nothing it had to exist in two opposite and complementary kinds: positive and negative. We assume we are made of only positive energy defined by Newton’s laws. He said that when an object was caused to accelerate it had to be pushed by a “force of action” pointing in the same direction as the motion produced. An object made of negative energy would move in a direction opposite this force. Although difficult to accept at first introduction, this actually involves no conceptual difficulties. If two objects both made of negative energy are imagined to collide, both have their responses reversed and so the effects cancel. Consequently if all matter were negative it would behave in exactly the same way as that we observe. Indeed it is impossible to say which dominates for our matter.

For creation to occur both kinds need to exist as a balanced mixture of minute real particles to be called “primaries”. These are the only true particles that really can exist. Then it is also possible for the positive and negative primaries to cancel each other to zero, so enabling an existing mixture to annihilate itself to become nothingness. So what would actually happen during the collision of opposites? They would certainly all be in vigorous motion, like the molecules of a gas, eternally colliding and bouncing off one another.

Opposed energy dynamics gave the answer. Another law of mechanics called the “conservation of momentum” had also to be satisfied. The momentum of an object is defined as its mass multiplied by its velocity. The sum of the momentums of all objects colliding has to be the same after the collision as it was before, as measured in any specified direction.

Instead of annihilating this condition forced both colliding primaries to gain energy of their own kind in balanced amounts. They were breeding like opposite sexes! A detailed computational study taking collision probabilities into account showed that the average energy gain would be 0.091 of incident kinetic energy if the average speed were 99% of the speed of light. The proportion rose to 0.199 as speed fell to 10% of light speed. Of course the incident kinetic energy rises rapidly as speed increases. In consequence the i-ther would form a rapidly growing ball but its density would also increase until an unstable condition was reached. And this solved the problem of the CC!

The entire flow field now broke up into minute cells divided by watershed-like boundaries, possibly forming a regular pattern like a honeycomb. Inside each cell, flows converged to a central point and here conditions, again governed by the need to conserve momentum, favoured mutual annihilation. In the outer annulii of each cell a gas-like fluid existed forming a breeding blanket and nearly all this creation was cancelled out at the central focal points. A minute net creation remained causing a slow growth, over aeons of time, to the vast size of the universe we see today -except for one thing: matter did not yet exist. The i-ther is only the source of matter. However, when matter eventually appeared it would go with the flow. And the flow predicted was one of accelerating expansion. Every part would be moving away from every other with both speeds and accelerations proportional to separating distance. This was predicted in 1992 and in 1998, as reported by B. Schwarzchild, astronomers discovered that, contrary to their expectations, the expansion was indeed accelerating. So Survival Physics has made an important prediction later confirmed by observation.

A SUB-QUANTUM CONSCIOUSNESS EVOLVES

There could be almost spherical centres of annihilation (hubs) or long filamentous shapes (links) all of finite diameter and consisting of primaries in the act of mutual destruction. Hubs and links, however, would themselves form permanent structures. Many links could couple to a single hub as one of an infinite variety of geometries that could form by chance.

This structure formed a source of power that could only manifest as waves: so explaining why the quantum level has to operate on wave mechanics. The waves need intelligent organisation, however, but arrangements of hubs and links could be imagined that looked very like the artificial neural networks that scientists, such as Hinton have shown to have memory and learning capability. The speculative part of the emerging theory had to assume that in the fullness of time a neural network would evolve and that further evolution would lead to the emergence of the conscious intelligence needed for wave organisation.

This meant that at least the sub-conscious mind had to exist as an i-theric structure. It would need to contrive matter by the clever organisation of real quantum waves. A sub atomic particle would be formed by the repeated focusing of waves at points chosen at random but confined to regions of constructive wave interference patterns. In this way a satisfying interpretation for the enigma of wave-particle-duality emerged. A particle, such as an electron, would no longer be regarded as a single object travelling along the curved paths caused by the action of electric and magnetic forces. Instead electrons would be sequences of wave focusing events joined end to end in time but not in position. These positions would be chosen mathematically so that, as observed by scientists, electrons would only now appear to be acted upon by a real force of electromagnetism. The other three forces of nature could be similarly interpreted. Hence our universe now appears as a semi-virtual reality. It is built from real energies but these are intelligently organised.

Each i-theric mind would have to be separated from the universal sub-conscious by some form of information filter-barrier programmed into the i-ther, so that it could interact with other minds in meaningful ways. This could explain why at least one matter system had to be organised to provide a temporary housing in which such interaction could occur. Then on the demise of that housing another based on different laws of physics was provided so that development of individual minds could continue. The i-ther could build several interpenetrating universes all occupying the same space but tuned to different quantum wave frequencies. Then the i-theric mind could tune into just one at a time. If the brain has its own consciousness then a copy is carried in the i-ther.

In this way a theory emerged, that had survival as its core feature. It had appeared from the simultaneous solution of the three major difficulties of physics. With this model the entire spectrum of the so-called “paranormal” can be given an explanation as potentially real effects including mediumship, telepathy, psychokinesis, healing, apports, OOB’s, NDE’s and prediction.

Top
#15339 - 12/02/08 04:42 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I'm going to quote Shermer on this:

 Quote:
The attempt to link the weirdness of the quantum world (such as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which states that the more precisely you know a particle’s position, the less precisely you know its speed, and vice versa) to mysteries of the macro world (such as consciousness) is not new. The best candidate to connect the two comes from physicist Roger Penrose and physician Stuart Hameroff, whose theory of quantum consciousness has generated much heat but little light in scientific circles.

Inside our neurons are tiny hollow microtubules that act like structural scaffolding. The conjecture (and that’s all it is) is that something inside the microtubules may initiate a wave function collapse that leads to the quantum coherence of atoms, causing neurotransmitters to be released into the synapses between neurons and thus triggering them to fire in a uniform pattern, thereby creating thought and consciousness. Since a wave function collapse can only come about when an atom is “observed” (i.e., affected in any way by something else), neuroscientist Sir John Eccles, another proponent of the idea, even suggests that “mind” may be the observer in a recursive loop from atoms to molecules to neurons to thought to consciousness to mind to atoms….

In reality, the gap between sub-atomic quantum effects and large-scale macro systems is too large to bridge. In his book The Unconscious Quantum, the University of Colorado particle physicist Victor Stenger demonstrates that for a system to be described quantum mechanically the system’s typical mass m, speed v, and distance d must be on the order of Planck’s constant h. “If mvd is much greater than h, then the system probably can be treated classically.” Stenger computes that the mass of neural transmitter molecules, and their speed across the distance of the synapse, are about three orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be influential. There is no micro-macro connection. Subatomic particles may be altered when they are observed, but the moon is there even if no one looks at it.


D.

Top
#15345 - 12/02/08 05:55 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Ronald D. Pearson doesn't believe the big bang happened. He thinks modern physics is wrong about just about everything. You really know how to pick your sources.

It seems as though you are grasping at straws here Miss De Sade.

Good conclusions are reached by starting with evidence,logic, and reason, and working your way forward to a conclusion that fits. What you are doing is precisely the opposite, in that you have a conclusion and you are willing to throw just about anything out there to justify it. The way you keep quoting people you see as 'more knowledgeable', without really understanding the material, is exactly the same thing as christians that toss scripture in the absence of being able to formulate a real argument. The fact is you strongly believe all this stuff but you don't know (or at least can't seem to articulate) why.

The word for that, my dear, is faith.

There is nothing inherently wrong with your conclusions, but your notions of what constitutes epistemology;ie how you arrived at them, are horribly flawed.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15358 - 12/02/08 06:58 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
I have articulated a lot of things since the beginning of this thread. What some may define as rational or probable or even worth looking into more you just chalk up to being “not good enough.” Every author, writer, philosopher, etc. will have people who choose to criticize their work, offer up a different opinion, look for another way to see things. So the fact that you say someone has been criticized, be them someone I have referred to or not, proves nothing. In fact, throughout the evolution of our species, the people who made some of the greatest discoveries were most criticized by the popular opinion at the time. Those without enemies or opposition have nothing worthwhile to say.

Why don’t you try, instead of telling me you disagree because someone I’ve referred to has been criticized, to actually refer to the quoted material and formulate your opinion as a direct result of your own thinking on the concept at hand rather than telling me what other people think?

Top
#15359 - 12/02/08 07:24 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:



Why don’t you try, instead of telling me you disagree because someone I’ve referred to has been criticized, to actually refer to the quoted material and formulate your opinion as a direct result of your own thinking on the concept at hand rather than telling me what other people think?

Wow really? Now you are just being intellectually dishonest. You are also employing transference, by accusing me of precisely what you are doing.

To shut me up, all you have to do is tell me how the functions of the brain, which are essentially us, can function without the brain. Pointless meandering about quantum physics is neither here nor there, as it just doesn't apply. You'd know this if you had an understanding of QM. The macro is not the micro.


_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15361 - 12/02/08 08:17 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
ZephyrGirl Offline
R.I.P.
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 706
Loc: Adelaide Australia
[quote]Theoretically, if a Wiccan is doing a ritual to pray to different goddesses to affect change, who exactly do they think they are praying to if not a sentient energy of some sort? Why spend all that time honoring different deities and looking for results in communing with them if you hold onto the belief that a sentient energy cannot exist? It’s quite the contradiction. Not that I believe in any Wiccan deities, I just find it interesting that someone who does can adhere to such contradiction.[quote]

Yes, but I have met a witch (not sure if she's actually a wiccan) that looks to their gods as we do Satan in that it an archtype, not an actual entity.

It's quite possible my friend calls herself wiccan (out of some ignorance about the whole thing, I get the feeling she is more eclectic pagan anyway, from her celtic roots), when she really isn't.

I haven't actually gone into depth of conversations about this yet, but will be soon as she is being a big influence on my daughter, and I don't want my daughters head filled with to much wiccan bullshit. Although in fairness to my daughter, she is learning quite abit about the differant trains of thought from me anyway.

Yes I agree with you though, a strict wiccan would worship an actual diety, but like Satanism, it is probably a very over used word. I should perhaps have used pagan. I consider myself to be a pagan/satanist. I don't see a problem as I personally see the dieties as archtypes and I don't pray to them.

Zeph
_________________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass -
It's about learning to dance in the rain.


Top
#15370 - 12/02/08 10:44 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
That is an interesting quote, and it makes sense if you believe that consciousness originated from the macrocosmic world or is strictly dependent on it. But in order to for something to be measured by the definitions of classical physics, it must be a physical system no smaller than an atom. I do not think that consciousness originated in the macrocosmic, I think it originated in the microcosmic and that as an essence unto itself it is energy-based. It is stored in the brain and the brain acts as an energy-transmitter to the limbs for as long as our energy/sentience stays confined there; we still retain the same thought processes when an arm or leg has been cut off. Clearly those areas do not house sentience. All perception really is, is our brains translating information once the input has been received. Our limbs work, our hearts pump blood, we manage to maintain a point of focus (our human shell) for as long as the body remains viable. Our bodies just weren’t built to last for hundreds of years.

To look at our bodies as the “large-scale macro systems” as the author has suggested means limiting them to the laws of classical physics. It only remains accurate to a certain degree. It would be like using a yardstick to measure a dime. The core of our brain would be a different matter. In physics, the physical system on a classical level only deals with SI units measuring, at the smallest, atoms and molecules. When you reach anything smaller than that (the subatomic) the laws of classical physics cannot be applied and SI units can only be measured by the laws of quantum physics. Neural transmitted molecules are but a system within a system, just as there are systems within atoms. The essence of who we are, in terms of technical placement, is in the brain.

Top
#15382 - 12/03/08 04:19 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
If what you say is true, then some people have been stupid forever and never learn.
How sad is that, to be eternally stupid.


During the French revolution, a few times when the head was cut off the mouth still moved and the eyes looked with horror at the crowds. Then it died, and stopped moving and was tossed on the pile with the rest.

In the end all you have is faith.
Faith that you don't really die, and part of you carries on thru the abyss.

I'm tired, when I go, I want it to be over, I sure as shit don't want to come back and do this all over again.

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#15388 - 12/03/08 07:53 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Picunnus Offline
member


Registered: 11/29/08
Posts: 101
Loc: Ohio, USA
 Originally Posted By: Tala de Sade

One of the things that I find interesting is the fact that we can see the light of stars that have long been dead. It just takes such a vast amount of time for the energy of that light to travel to a place where our eyes can see it after the star has burned out. I forget what the exact scientific term assigned to the phenomenon was, but there is information out there about radio transmissions from decades ago being picked up by satellite receptors orbiting the Earth. So it’s been proven that energy can exist beyond the realm of having a physical device to harness it.

Yes, but there are no NEW activites that continue to take place when the physical source ceases to exisit. I don't have a problem with the energy that makes up our consciousness continuing to exist - but it is no longer OUR CONSCIOUSNESS. It loses its form and thus can no longer function.
_________________________
WWAD?

Top
#15415 - 12/03/08 04:13 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
As I quoted, the brain and what happens there isn't subject to quantum mechanics. So you argue that when delving deeper into our stuff and going to atomic or sub-atomic level or as small as needed, it might be subject to quantum mechanics.
That's a silly argument because when at the normal level it might not be subject, why assume it might be subject at a deeper level, there is no indication beyond wanting it to act as such. If your argument is valid for the brain, it sure is valid for all other parts. Anyone ever seen his hand or ass do quantum behavior? No. So why is the brain an exception?

Your argument that we retain the same thought processes when an arm is cut off is flawed too. When we cut off an arm, we break the wiring between the brain and the arm. So, of course the thought processes remain the same. But if we damage the brain, you suddenly see that thought processes get damaged or warped too.

I cut some nerves in my hand, short story; bar beer bottle bikers. The things guys do when they are acting like guys. So two sides of two fingers are sleeping. Still, to my brain everything is perfectly normal unless I actually touch them with something, then I realize the lack of feeling again.
Another thing; I dropped down from rather high in a work related accident years ago. Amongst things, I crushed my skull into the concrete that hard that the inside of my ear ruptured. Sure beats a shattered skull so I aint complaining and for the funny fuckers; no I was like this even before. Now, the only thing I really lost there was some time. I can't remember shit from the moment I stood up there until I woke down and in wonderland again. If my consciousness isn't a part of my brain, why would it hide that period from me? My brain shut down for a while and my consciousness went out like every OS when getting a blue screen.

Check out commissurotomy in surgery and you'll learn that under conditions or in some cases they can split the consciousness into two. It contradicts your position because you'll notice that by damaging the brain, you can create a second center of consciousness. Again evidence of consciousness just being limited to the brain.

Your will to believe in consciousness surviving is clouding your judgement. You embrace fancy theories without anything to back it up beyond people saying so and ignore plain basic evidence found at a lot of levels.
Now mind you, I'm not bothered that you believe this stuff but I'm just wondering about the why.

D.

Top
#15452 - 12/03/08 11:52 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Woland Moderator Offline
Seasoned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 764
Loc: Oslo, Norway
Tools, Ladies & Gentlemen; tools...

Afterlife?
Who the fuck knows.
Probably not...

I feel that it is fairly logical to say the the universal and/or inter dimensional sum of energy is a constant.
Nothing comes from nothing.

I also believe that Diavolo is absolutely right when he so vividly pictures the inhabitants of Earth as jackshit in the big something.

Whether "consciousness" is limited to the brain only?
Well, I find it a rather uncharming thought.
Our body learns and remembers on a broad and complex level...

I see myself as a rational individual, but at the same time I love it when consciousness is stretching beyond the borders of imagination.
Huxley anyone?

Kinda leaning more towards Jung than Freud.
I have always felt that actions can make a mark in the collective subconscious.

It would be a lesser world if the wonderful being of "magick" were to be peeled apart like Ibsens onion.
All layers, no core...

But then; I prefer the greys.
Fuck Black & White.
Hail Oliver Haddo!
_________________________
Regards

Woland

Contra Mundum!

Top
#15483 - 12/04/08 12:46 PM Enough [Re: Succubus666]
Disabuse Offline
member


Registered: 09/19/07
Posts: 220
Alright Tala, this thread has been brought to my attention. Mainly because this is highly illogical, and your rebuts are irrational.

Let me start off with a quote of yours.

 Originally Posted By: Tala de Sade
”It does not seem Satanic in my opinion to blindly dismiss anything based on the opinion of the ignorant social majority.”

Would it not be even more un-Satanic to blindly accept that which has not been scientifically proven without a doubt that it exists? This is not scientifically proven without a doubt. All you’re doing is trying to argue dogma that has put horse blinders on you.

First, you recommend we read The Afterlife Experiments. Have you even looked into the authors of that book? William L Simon focuses on the study of manipulating the human element of security. I sure hope that rings an alarming bell in your head. He manipulates human thought to make humans feel more comfortable with themselves, or does it to wreak havoc in their psyche. Go ahead, look him up. You’ll find his name on these other books.

Books with William L. Simon co-authoring: (Those with *** also have Gary Schwartz name)
***The G.O.D Experiments: How Science is Discovering God in Everything, Including Us
***The Energy Healing Experiments: Science Reveals Our Natural Power To Heal
The Art of Intrusion: The Real Stories Behind the Exploits of Hackers, Intruders and Deceivers
The Art of Deception: Controlling the Human Element of Security


You want to get me started with Gary Schwartz? Alright then. Why is it that all three of Gary Schwartz' books have a co-author who is a professional manipulator of human emotion? Gary Schwartz is a PhD; I am sure he is more than capable of writing these books on his own scientific merit… or is he? Hmmmm….

Even though this is reported by Fox News, I can’t ignore it. They have absolutely no reason to lie about this.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6834964643442474141

Are you kidding me? 3.3 million?

In later posts, you say the experiments were “highly controlled”. How do you know this? The book mentions it? Not good enough, I want video proof of their findings. Show me video that is unaltered. Surely, if it is as controlled as you say, in this day in age, they surely would have recorded their subjects. I refuse to trust a book that is co-authored by someone like William L. Simon.

It appears to me you have fallen victim to a master of manipulation teaming up with a scientist that knows big fancy words trying to tap into the inner core of the human psyche, and manipulate it to make them money. There is absolutely NO solid proof.

If you choose to reply to me Tala, it better be with absolute defining scientific proof. I want links, videos and anything else you can get me to prove your theory. Otherwise, it is just that, a theory.
_________________________
-Disabuse Conformity-
"Cu è surdu, orbu e taci, campa cent'anni 'mpaci."

Top
#15511 - 12/05/08 12:51 AM Re: Enough [Re: Disabuse]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
It’s nice that it has been “brought to your attention” that I’ve actually stated an opinion and discussed why I have that opinion, but it would be nice if you actually read the entire thread before deciding you have a problem with it. I have mentioned previously that my opinion is based on the sum total of things I have experienced personally, and that I would be more than open to changing my opinion should that paradigm shift. Not once have I even suggested that my opinion was based on any sort of dogma or religion. That was a term that YOU decided to use. In fact, in my very first post on this matter, I stated very clearly that I had no interest in any dogmatic or religious perceptions regarding consciousness. So if someone has a problem with my opinion, it would be nice if they had the balls to use the personal messaging system rather than whining to the management.

I started this thread purely out of an interest in hearing other perceptions on the matter, whether they contradicted mine or not. That would be the basis of having any open-minded discussion with anyone about anything. Some people have actually been able to articulate themselves well and actually given me further things to consider, others have simply gone on to reiterate the point that there are people out there who call themselves Satanists who lack the capability to articulate anything intelligent at all. So I wouldn’t consider it a waste of time either way. I wanted more to think about and a better understanding of the human race, and I got it. What I was not expecting however was someone like you coming at me from a point of suggesting that what I’ve written is not thought out.

I’ve chosen not to share some of my personal experiences, but I don’t agree with your opinion that there is no rationale behind mine. I’ve stated very clearly that this is my opinion based on my own experiences. I’ve stated very clearly that I’ve always been open to having my opinion changed, and I furthermore haven’t done anything along the lines of trying to tell other people what to think. I’ve shared my opinion and some of the reasons that I have that opinion. I’ve responded to the posts I thought were worthy of response and that I had time to respond to, maybe I irritated a few ignorant people by not responding to them, but when it comes right down to it I don’t think I’ve said or done anything that contradicts the ethics of conversation the founders of this forum set out.

And just so there is not any confusion, I am posting this directly in response to your criticism and not as a scientific inquiry. If you’d like me to I can reply to the latter half of your post - that is if you actually care to have a conversation - I don’t have a problem doing so. Schwartz was at war with the Fox network before his book was even published, he caused them bad PR when the book was published, so frankly I would be surprised if they weren’t looking for excuses to do the same. So I will have to politely contradict your opinion that “they have no reason to lie” about it. And I’m sure I do have faith in the idea that sentience survives death to the same degree that people have faith in the idea that it does not. All it boils down to is what each person has experienced and how they have accumulated knowledge to form an opinion in either direction.

Top
#15568 - 12/05/08 11:21 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
Disabuse,

Sorry for going on with this thread, but as it's not locked...

Diavolo, when I read:

 Quote:
Now, the only thing I really lost there was some time. I can't remember shit from the moment I stood up there until I woke down and in wonderland again. If my consciousness isn't a part of my brain, why would it hide that period from me? My brain shut down for a while and my consciousness went out like every OS when getting a blue screen.


I'm not sure we're well aligned on the consciousness definition, hence may be the confusion. However, it's not well easy for me to define it... The remaining could appear a little it "unstructured" but I hope be able to pass my "message".

1st, one can distinguish 4 main states of mind:
- awake with thoughts
- awake without thoughts
- asleep with dreams
- asleep without dreams

Where/what is your consciousness in each of these states according to you?

2nd, coming back on your experience you probably had a concussion. As consequences, you were unconscious at first and you suffer of some amnesia later on. Let’s not mix unconsciousness and amnesia. Once I took “Rohipnols” with beers. I was conscious during my “trip” I have clean friends who reported me I had discussions with them. May be not “well conscious and fully aware but conscious enough to speak. But on the day after, when I woke up it was to big black hole in my memory! Not remembering does not imply not conscious.

3rd, you can illustrate your experience as a reboot of the OS. But what about comas? Some persons can stay for years in an unconscious state. Then, without any external intervention on the brain, they wake up and come back to consciousness. From which cause this effect is produced if it’s not from the brain (which apparently does not change radically)?

You can see the hardware as sustaining the software and even generating it (It’s hard for me to believe that some nuts and bold can write any intelligent piece of code) but you can’t deny that the running computer can also be viewed as hardware driven by software. Software steering the screen to show me what I’m typing. As like the learning process causes a remodelling of our neural network. The cause-effect flows are opposite in both views.
I personally think this results in dual thinking that tends to divide a whole thing in pieces by the mean of concepts. In one sense, a software without hardware is not more meaningful than hardware without any software (even firmware). I already said I have a malaise in splitting me in a mind and a body. I AM my body AND my mind (and my feelings, and my memory, and my personality…)
Could the whole be bigger than the sum of the parties?


Coming back consciousness’ definition, if your view of consciousness is close to “awake” (with and without thoughts) I thing there is a huge gap with my (and probably Tala) understanding of consciousness. I personally see it more as what the Buddhist call the sixth sense. The sense by which we observe (ourselves or the world)

I would be pleased to have your views on this. In this thread, in another one or in PM. I let you decide as you’re a more senior member than me...

Top
#15580 - 12/06/08 04:37 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Fabiano]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Of course in the case of consciousness the whole is bigger than the sum of its parts. You can dissect a human as much as you want, you won't find consciousness. That's the main problem at the moment and time will tell if they can ever pass that barrier.

I'm a materialist at this level. Although we talk about consciousness in a seperate manner, consciousness = brain = body to me. It's a side effect, some epiphenomenon. It feels as something different but doesn't need to be.
Although we can't pinpoint where it is, or what actually triggers it, we can see and trigger effects telling us something about it.

I've been under influence of stuff a lot and rather familar with the black gaps in my memory. But what I think is the problem of this is not as much consciousness as the lack of storing stuff. I've known a couple of real drunks during my days and they all have the same problem; short-term memory. They can ramble for ages about the days or yore but can't pop up anything from a day ago. Brain affects consciousness again.
If consciousness was not affected, like in my head-reboot, it wouldn't suffer those gaps. It's the same with a computer, if it reboots before you save a file, that file is lost. If your drive is corrupt and doesn't store, you suffer the same problems. If your life is saved inside your brain and your identity depends upon those memories, consciousness or your identity can hardly be solid when the brain dies on you.

Consciousness to me is an internal conversation. At times it doesn't need thoughts. Animals could have some rude level of consciousness that is based upon perception only. Humans have a very complex one compared to that, largely due to language. So you can have consciousness while being awake with our without thought, as you can have consciousness when being asleep dreaming or not. But consciousness is not a static product. Like I said some replies ago, your identity is dependant upon your brain. The person you are now is coalition-limited and if the brain decides differently, upon input or disturbances your personality would shift accordingly.

I'm not too sure about sleep and consciousness because in most cases, dreams are what your remember. I don't dream very often, actually I hardly ever dream at all. If I don't remember them, they don't exist. So there is no short-term storage fluke in my memory. I can easily look upon it as a defragmentation of my brain or memories and the occasional dream as some short-term memory fluking while restoring things. It's even debatable my consciousness was active, or rather my personality was actually active while it all happened.

I think we should make a difference between consciousness, as in being aware and the highly complex identity result we humans experience. As I have mentioned, in surgery, we are able to split consciousness in two awareness centers, resulting in humans also two identity centers. It could go so far that you can be 50% christian in one part and 50% satanist in the other. You can believe two highly contradictory things because you have a dual-identity.

All these things do nothing but reinforce the materialst in me.

This is a quick reply, probably not totally coherent at some levels but I'm at my partners and have to battle myself to the computer, quickly responding before her kids glue themselves to the screen again, so excuse me if I didn't elaborate enough or touched all points.

D.

Top
#15607 - 12/06/08 10:13 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
I also have very few time for reacting on this, sorry.
But I would like to mention lucid dreams just for not forgetting it and possibly coming back on it later...

But I'm happy we highlighted the "difference between consciousness, as in being aware and the highly complex identity result we humans experience".

Top
#15623 - 12/06/08 03:24 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Fabiano]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Take the time you need. I'm rather familiar with lucid dreaming, at least the horror versions, so include it if you like.

I'd like to mention that even when we'll be drifting from the initial subject, consciousness as being afterlife-resistant by definition needs to be identity centered. After all, that is what the mediums claim to contact. Simple awareness, no matter how we'll define it, can hardly answer a question.

D.

Top
#15625 - 12/06/08 03:55 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

I'd like to mention that even when we'll be drifting from the initial subject, consciousness as being afterlife-resistant by definition needs to be identity centered. After all, that is what the mediums claim to contact. Simple awareness, no matter how we'll define it, can hardly answer a question.

And this is really the bottom fucking line. The identity is patently centered in the brain and the evidence for this is overwhelming, as you have already touched upon. Even if some phantom quantum energy could somehow remain as a cohesive 'thing' once the body died, everything that person was is gone. So who cares?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15709 - 12/07/08 03:45 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
Yes, our latest posts were more about Consciousness than about Consciousness and Death.

But on this I already gave my opinion:
 Quote:
However there are thing that are hardly conceivable for a rational mind, like :
- consciousness after death (mainly for the reason given by Diavolo)
- knowing the future (needing access to some information repository alike akashic records and raising questions on fate, destiny & free will )
- some of the magic mentioned in TSB


On this we're quite aligned I think. \:\)

Top
#15880 - 12/10/08 01:40 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
From what I understand about sleep and the reasons why your brain essentially “powers down” for a period of time every night is that it’s a survival mechanism, physically and psychologically. Have you ever noticed how staying awake for days at a time makes you hallucinate, impairs your motor functions, and generally makes you feel like you’ve taken some really bad drug? Our species has not evolved to stay awake for such a long period of time; our minds cannot handle it. Our bodies go through a sleep cycle to regenerate, repair, level out. I don’t think it’s worth getting into a philosophical debate on dreams in this thread, but part of dreaming is a survival mechanism, something to entertain our minds so our bodies stay asleep. We’ve all had experiences with an external sound or sensation translating into our dreams. That happens to help us stay asleep and complete the cycle.

On the concept of consciousness and thought, I think it’s interesting that our thoughts make up such a large part of who we are (some might even say they are the essence of who we are), yet they are completely intangible. You can actually hear your own voice in your head, but no one else can. You can see images in your mind that no one else can see. So is this purely a function of the brain, or is it an external source being harnessed by the brain for as long as the brain is “turned on” and the body is alive? On this subject I would recommend the book The Seat of the Soul by Gary Zukav. Even The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot would be an interesting read.

Top
#15885 - 12/10/08 04:01 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
We need sleep yes, when being deprived of it enough, for a long enough period of time, we will likely die at some point.

There are theories that when we dream, we reprocess the information absorbed that day and link it up with old information stored, increasing our survival options. It makes sense, during the daytime our brain is flooded with information from our senses and our awareness is limited to a degree of it. If you look around, you only notice that which you put your attention to, and a lot of other things, your brain percieves, through your senses, is stored but not seen by your consciousness. I doubt your brains stores all in your permanent memory and maybe dreaming is some side-effect from a mechanism that gets rid of trivial shit and perma-stores the important.
Fact is, dreaming is not limited to the human brain, animals do it too, so it's a brain-thing.

I do think that consciousness and thoughts are purely limited to the brain and not linked to any external source. The truth is in the exceptions. If you look at people hearing other voices in their heads or having psychotic episodes, you see the normal state being affected by something, call it brain damage or chemical imbalance or whatever you like. What they have is an abnormal state of mind, a brain functioning in a not as supposed manner. Not all can be helped but the fact that some can be helped by either surgery or drugs is clear evidence that there is no external link.

D.

Top
#15998 - 12/11/08 08:44 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
I always thought that dreaming was more of a dump for the subconscious, a landfill where all the weird shit went. Certain conscious thoughts and incidents in real life that were initially perceived as inconsequential could actually be significant to one's subconscious and be stored for future recall.

Every dream I have, even the relatively tame ones, have some fucked up element/s in them, and some are recognizable as coming from my conscious state of mind, being portrayed in some twisted manner in my subconscious dream state. Just last night, I had a terrible dream about my mom being dead, and throughout the dream I felt as if a great weight was being pressed down on me, I was so sad, missing her so much, feeling as if I didn't have a chance to tell her how I much I loved her. In reality, my grandpa had died Thanksgiving weekend, and my mom had been sending me some strange texts like, "I love you, just wanted you to know" the past few days, as if she was needing some affirmation of love from me. My subconscious must've tied the death of my grandpa to my mom, who was in need of emotional attention, and made it into a subconscious spew dream.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#16016 - 12/12/08 01:36 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Nemesis]
Butterz Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/26/08
Posts: 77
Loc: Georgia
When it comes to subconscious mind and dreaming one thing has baffled me. When you have a dream that you're falling and right when you wake up you feel like you bounced. Some people have stated it is a form of astral projection and the bounce is re-entering your body. That implies your mind can exsist without body. Niether can be proven by science. All one can do is assume.

For there to be consciousness after death is absurd. There would have to be a source of energy. Energy cannot be created or exausted, it can only be transfered. To believe the mind can function with out a brain one would have to believe a light bulb can function without electricity.

The only true life after death is as worm and plant food. In wich no part of yor "soul" will transfer.

Top
#16030 - 12/12/08 12:13 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Butterz]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

Some people have stated it is a form of astral projection and the bounce is re-entering your body.

Yes. Some people believe they are Napoleon, too.

The sensation you describe is your brain transitioning between what it thinks is real in the absence of sensory input and the restoration of 'objective reality' through the reconnection of the senses that comes with 'consciousness'. Belief creates reality (or at least the sensation of reality) and the transition between the 'reality' of a really vivid dream and the reality given to us by our senses and concious mind can sometimes cause feelings of vertigo and/or motion.
No metaphysical hokey pokey required to explain this one.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#16379 - 12/17/08 03:34 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
Dreaming is a subject which will fascinate humans until the end of time. It seems more likely that the Earth will become uninhabitable long before we have a chance to answer all the questions out there regarding the workings of the brain/mind. What’s ironic is that there is such widespread fascination with it, but at the same time the scientific community still considers any research into the afterlife to be a taboo subject. I don’t think that scientists in the western world are geared toward understanding anything outside the scope of the immediate experience of the human body. Here it’s generally thought that either there is nothing after death, or there is but we won’t possibly know what until we get there, case closed. In the east medicine is practiced with the underlying belief that that we have a soul and problems can be energy based. Each part of the world makes a natural assumption. Those assumptions may contradict one another, but both have devised some incredible treatments and understandings of the mind and body.

I respect your opinion although I cannot say I agree that sentience, our individuality, is purely a matter of organic function. The best evidence I can see for that are the vast, unusually accurate sightings of ghosts that have been reported by everyday people for as far as our recorded history dates. That they would so often be reported to have appearances and mannerisms that match a person who is deceased that once lived in a specific place is uncanny. It is an energy which exists independently of the physical and is not limited to what we know to be the laws of the physical world. In certain environments it is possible to pick up on these energies with electronic equipment and our own five senses. I’m not an expert on the subject, but I know the hows and whys have been addressed in a wide variety of literature, both theoretically and in terms of what has been proven with science in terms of capturing clear impressions and ruling out other atmospheric phenomena.

Top
#16383 - 12/17/08 04:43 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I don't think western science views afterlife as a taboo but more as a ridiculous concept and a waste of time, energy and most important; money.

The East has a different approach yeah, there is much more duality in it all but personally I am not convinced it is better than our rather materialistic approach. It might be better at the level of effect like placebos, I don't argue upon that.
In the past I had some back-problems, bad enough to seek some treatment. I've been, prescribed by the doc, to the crack-yer-bones-till-the-air-pops guy, been used as a pin-cushion to solve the physical problem, had electricity put on and it resulted in me telling the guy after some treatments I wasn't paying to get worse. So I did what a Westerner should do, said 'Fuck You China', went to a doctor and told him to shoot cortisone up my back. It didn't take an hour for my problem to be solved. So if I got a problem bad enough to see a doctor, I tell him to dope me up.
It might work different for others but I fear I have a skeptical body.

I can't believe ghosts are reality for a multitude of reasons. First because as a theory, it makes things so complex that this triggered complexity is probably a good argument why it is likely wrong.
The second the vast amount of contradictions and illogical parts in most sightings.
A third being that with all those sightings, and mind you, if I browse around it seems that there are more ghosts than pets in this world, I didn't see any on prime-time news. One could say that technology fails or fall short to register it (and I imply this in a valid scientific evidence manner) but maybe there isn't anything to register in the first place. Technology is like advanced human sense, exponentially increasing the range humans are limited to, so it is rather strange that a human could perceive what this technology can't.

D.

Top
#16388 - 12/17/08 05:18 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

I can't believe ghosts are reality for a multitude of reasons.

I am in the same boat. Even having seen one close up, in a place where many others had similar experiences, is not enough to convince me of 'ghosts'.

I am, however, convinced unexplained phenomenon happens. Absolutely convinced. The fact that is as yet unexplained makes it hard to prove(or even explain...duh!) any of it, for reasons which should be self evident.

The dichotomy is this; Either there is no unexplained phenomenon, and we already understand all the fundamentals of the universe, or we don't. I am in the latter camp.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#16461 - 12/18/08 02:22 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
I can't believe ghosts are reality for a multitude of reasons. First because as a theory, it makes things so complex that this triggered complexity is probably a good argument why it is likely wrong.


Most scientific discoveries originally appeared so complex that it was naturally assumed they could not be real or would never be proven. It took forever to figure gravity out, even while there was clear evidence that it existed it was a long time before it could be explained. As a non-scientist much of the world around me is too complicated to understand in any in-depth complexities, in terms of formulas and measurements, laws and theories. But I turn on my cell phone and it receives a signal, I can use it to instantaneously communicate with a person on the other side of the world. The sun sets every night and comes back the next morning. What goes up eventually comes down.


 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
A third being that with all those sightings, and mind you, if I browse around it seems that there are more ghosts than pets in this world, I didn't see any on prime-time news.


The news has more to do with instilling fear and reporting events that effect a great deal of people on a more practical basis. Stories involving ghosts however have become a more mainstream thing as far as television goes: Paranormal State, Psychic Children, Ghost Towns, Unsolved Mysteries, Ghost Hunters, Psychic Detectives, Ghost Trackers, Montel Williams, Ghost Adventures... And those are just some of the television shows that deal with the matter from a non-fiction perspective, nevermind stories like Medium and Ghost Whisperer.

Top
#16473 - 12/18/08 04:21 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
 Originally Posted By: Tala de Sade
And those are just some of the television shows that deal with the matter from a non-fiction perspective.

Most ghost shows have some kind of disclaimer that they are provided for entertainment purposes only (in the UK at least!).

I have yet to see any remotely rigorous epistemic standards applied to a 'serious' ghost documentary - whether sold as entertainment or otherwise. (I exclude debunking shows here)

Top
#16482 - 12/18/08 06:40 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
But ghosts have nothing to do with scientific discoveries. What happened to kobolds, dragons, unicorns, elves, vampires, werewolves, angels and demons. Just like ghosts they have been sighted throughout history. We don't take anyone serious that does pseudo-scientific research into unicorns or goes out there with a tin-foiled hat, nightvision gear and ultra-sound recorders to prove werewolves or demons exist. In those cases we don't need more than 3 seconds to state that it's a myth or plain bullshit. So why is it all so different for ghosts in your mind? Because the numerous sightings? Because so many people think it is true? If that is an argument (actually it's a falacy), we have to accept that god exists, and the devil, and heaven, hell, praying works, miracles do happen, jesus loves us. Same argument or rather fallacy.

Take distance for a second from ghosts and make a logical list of all requirements needed for ghosts to be able to exist. Then look at how plausible all those requirements are.

D.

Top
#16522 - 12/19/08 10:48 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
Ghosts are different from things like werewolves and unicorns because of the simple fact that such creatures are thought of as physical beings with specific characteristics; that if they existed they would walk among us. The earth has been explored extensively enough to rule out the existence of these creatures. What exists in the physical and what is energy-based are two completely different realms of thought and experience.

I’ve heard countless stories of everyday people experiencing unexplained phenomena which would best be explained as something energy-based. I can’t say I’ve heard the same of people experiencing werewolves or discovering anything wearing a tinfoil hat. There are people out there who have mental illnesses or too much of an imagination, and then there are everyday people who have some very surreal experiences. How do you go about explaining countless people witnessing the same non-physical entity, providing the same description and mannerisms experienced on separate occasions?

Religion has nothing to do with non-physical entities. All religion is man-made. What exists in this world and beyond it would exist still without the advent of religion, the following of dogma. Heaven and hell are concepts devised by such religions. The phenomena of ghosts is something which has been experienced by people from all walks of life.

Top
#16524 - 12/19/08 11:12 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
But you don't know if they are energy based. You're making that up, or embracing it because it fits a possible escape route out of my argument. You can't at the one hand say science isn't advanced enough to detect or prove ghosts and at the other claim they are energy based. If there is no proof, you don't know if its energy.
So there is no difference with vampires or werewolves. They can only be spotted under certain conditions and have the ability to stay in the dark when willing. It's so easy to dodge every reasonable argument and keep adapting it to make it fit my demand. Why do werewolves change with a full moon? Because they have some mutant DNA-string and when the lunar pull is heaviest, remember humans being mostly water, this chain of DNA code becomes dominant and adapts them. Pulling this all out of my ass but it is as valid as claiming ghosts are energy based.

Countless stories...
Mass-delusion anyone? How can you explain the many people that saw Mary... which turned out to be nothing but a lightdisplay on a window, affected by water. How do you explain the many people witnessing a UFO... which turned out to be nothing but a laser-trick. How can you explain the many people seeing the monster of Loch Ness... which turned out to be nothing but a wave. People are amazing at deluding themselves, the brain is a superb tool to do that.

Love is something experienced by people from all walks of life, never seen one claim it is an entity shaped as a cupid shooting arrows in yer ass. And religion has everything to do with non-physical entities. Religion is based upon it and I'd even say that believing in ghosts borderlines religion. Maybe god isn't visible in it but once you start to map the conditions, a creator will pop up. Afterlife and/or ghosts bring god into the picture.

That it's all man-made I won't deny.

D.


Edited by Diavolo (12/19/08 11:21 AM)
Edit Reason: added stuff

Top
#16526 - 12/19/08 12:23 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
You can't at the one hand say science isn't advanced enough to detect or prove ghosts and at the other claim they are energy based. If there is no proof, you don't know if its energy.
If ghosts are indeed made up of energy, science would detect them. Sometimes I wander what those "ghost-speakers" are talking about. They simply have no clue about science and the possibilities there are. Energy means elektricity, this means electromagnetism and this means it is detectable. And there is no such thing as "differen sorts of energy". Also I heard some idiots say they exist out of anti-matter. But in my humble opinion I know very well so that they should be annhilated within a mere second.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#16547 - 12/19/08 09:24 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dimitri]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1646
Loc: Orlando, FL
THANK YOU. That is in my opinion one of the biggest intellectual cop-outs people tend to fall back on.

There is no distinction between "physical beings" and "energy beings" because energy IS physical. It is just as tangible a part of our world as sound or light, and if people could see "spirits" occasionally or whatnot, then so could machines- and machines would do a much better job at it, I might add.

Yes, technically there could be an alternate, undetectable dimension with pink unicorns and fairies and gnomes and cookie-baking elves, but until you actually have any substantial proof beyond seeing weird smudges on photos, there's no reason to assume so.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#16551 - 12/19/08 11:51 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dimitri]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
Dreams? Do you actually dream when you sleep? Everyone around here apparently does not when I've asked them. Funny, huh?
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
#16559 - 12/20/08 02:36 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: paolo sette]
daevid777 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 951
Loc: Hell's Pisshole, Texas
I honestly tried to read all this sometimes rational overload of dog poo, but I now remember why I never enter the "philosophy" section of this forum... What is it called... hypergraphy? Jesus, Tala, I like you, I like you (Pee Wee Herman voice), but there's gotta be a better or more efficient way of summing some shit up.

Now, I'm not only depressed, but I have a headache. Or an eyeache. Or a headache caused by an eyeache. Or...

So anyway... no one has talked about Frankenstein... so I thought now would be a good time. I know Halloween is over, but bear with me, and we can see this thing through together. If you already read all that other shit, than my extraordinarily loooong post shouldn't bother you in the slightest.... you gots stamina, right?

Frankenstein. Where are all the Frankenstein monsters? "Oh where, oh where has my little Frankenstein gone? Oh where oh where can he be?" (a song I've been working on)

Well, it's actually an interesting book, and if we take anything here worth a damn, maybe, just maybe... we can actually get a Frankenstein... or "Universal Soldier" at the very least.

The human body does run on electricity, I'm hoping we can all agree upon that. Can we? I mean, let's just take what we know biologically and knock this shit down, right?

Our skeletal muscles, heart, and other "smooth muscles", brain and spinal column do in fact transmit and receive chemical/electrical impulses, via neurotransmitters and chemically via hormones, in order to carry out their respective jobs... number one - keeping us alive. I'm trying to separate these thoughts so you can refute later if you don't agree, but I hope you're with me so far.

So, now, though this may be a topic for another thread altogether... "What is this thing called consciousness?" (taken from "What is this thing called Love?"- Cole Porter... I like Frank's version best).

I mean, lets obtain the body, and we can get the organs, hot and ready like Little Ceaser's... set up some extracorporeal circulation unit, get the juice, blood, isotonic, hypertonic, hypotonic solutions, whatever, and get the electricity...

It's alive! It's Alive!!!!

Or not. And why not? And maybe a more creepy question... do you think it's been tried?

And maybe even more creepy... do you think it may have worked? ('Cause you know what, I think some crazy-asses have actually tried....)

I don't really think it worked either, not for lack of trying, however.

And this, my dear brothers and sisters is the rub, and perhaps the very crux of the the thing, which took so long to read, and was in fact, very painful to read. And by saying that, I mean Tala de Sade's original question.

For "life" itself, is very mysterious, and there is not one thing that can answer that "universal question" - maybe Douglas Adams got close... "the answer is 42" - that is about as much comfort as this world offers, and probably the best answer offered yet.

I've got some personal reasons for "looking into" this, but as I've been thinking... even if I saw a thing, or heard a thing, or actually believed a thing to be "true", it would definitely not make it so for you. And, I certainly wouldn't waste my time proclaiming such a thing to anyone. It would be vulgar, and I would be seen as a madman.

So this is a circular argument, and one that will NEVER be proven one way or the other. Unless of course someone comes back from the dead... like Jesus is supposed to do... and then we're definitely all fucked here anyway...


Just be ever vigilant, I implore you... of neighbors with bolts in their neck...

David.


Edited by daevid777 (12/20/08 02:43 AM)
_________________________
Where we're going, we don't need roads.

Top
#16665 - 12/21/08 08:00 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
Mike Offline
member


Registered: 09/11/07
Posts: 253
Loc: Farmingdale, NY
 Quote:
All the evidence I have ever seen points to consciousness being an effect of the physical brain.


Not to mention that emotions are an effect of the physical brain as well. And as far as consciousness itself coming from the brain, take into consideration loosing consciousness. While boxing, if a man is hit hard enough the right way, he can loose consciousness. This is evidence that the physical body is at least partly responsible for consciousness. Plus you can't forget how drugs can influence your consciousness as well. The way drugs work is by triggering different chemicals and neurotransmitters inside the brain. While under the influence of drugs, your level of consciousness may change. You may feel confused or think and perceive things differently than in a normal conscious state. This is because of chemical reactions occurring in your brain. This can happen on it's own as well, if one happens to have any type of mental health issue or anything along those lines. This is even more evidence of the physical brain causing consciousness. If consciousness was the effect of anything else, like a soul of some sort, these things would not be apparent due to the fact that they are mere chemical reactions and couldn't have any effect on a "soul".


ps: I know I am responding to a post from the beginning of the thread, as I was reading from the beginning and felt I should add to what was said in the first few posts.


Edited by Mike (12/21/08 08:02 PM)
_________________________
-Mike, "The Patron Satanic Saint of the Youth"

Top
#16667 - 12/21/08 08:39 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Mike]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
If I didn't know any better, I would say you are agreeing with me.

You are making sense. I guess you took my advice and started to use your noodle.

high5
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#16668 - 12/21/08 08:54 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
Mike Offline
member


Registered: 09/11/07
Posts: 253
Loc: Farmingdale, NY
Thanks. I guess I just realized logic is something to value. So is rationalization... You need to question everything until it makes sense.
_________________________
-Mike, "The Patron Satanic Saint of the Youth"

Top
#16774 - 12/23/08 02:12 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: daevid777]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
This thread has definitely gone off-topic more than a few times. But at the same time, this is a very broad topic with many different angles, so in a way that is to be expected. I’m fully aware that I may be perceived as the “black sheep” of this conversation. I have an opinion many people do not agree with, and I’ve even witnessed some jumping on the bandwagon, wanting to gain approval by chirping in with the popular opinion. I’ve also noticed that some people are afraid to say anything, not wanting to become another black sheep and go against the popular opinion; a few have even sent me personal messages stating that. So overall the developments here have been interesting to watch, from my perspective anyway.

I have to laugh at your Frankenstein comparison (in a nice way). It just isn’t logical on so many levels, and if you think about it, it does actually support my position of consciousness being individual. If consciousness could come out of dozens of previously dead, harvested body parts, the natural order of life and consciousness experiencing a birth until death cycle would be sorely interrupted. On top of that, even at the most basic level, all the body parts would have to either have the same blood type or be genetically compatible. I think science has proven that once a body (or body part) has entered into rigor mortis it cannot be reanimated and is not compatible with living tissue. Flipping a switch and running an electrical current through a bunch of body parts in the state of rigor mortis would not be the same as the electrical impulses the human body contains. For instance, electricity exists in North America and the United Kingdom but different electrical outlets are used. If you use the wrong one, your appliance gets fried.

Top
#16777 - 12/23/08 02:41 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
You should not consider yourself a black sheep for believing or being willing to believe in ghosts or afterlife. I don't know what others think of it, but I do like stuff I disagree with, as long as it is sensible or argumented well enough to have an actual argument about it. Disagreeing is more fun than agreeing at times. Of course some are going to jump in and bite too because they think it is safe to bite and others are going to avoid giving their opinion because they fear being bitten. Some dare to say their opinion and get the load, others don't have the balls. You at least got the balls to say your thing and put it down in a respectable manner.

D.

Top
#16809 - 12/24/08 05:20 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
daevid777 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 951
Loc: Hell's Pisshole, Texas
Almost everything Diavolo said, and this:

I wasn't disagreeing with you at all, and in some strange way, I'd really like to agree with you. The Frankenstein thing, which was supposed to make you laugh, I hope, was also to demonstrate exactly what you just posted. I mean, the "concept" or whatever anyone would like to call it (semantics again), of "life" or "living" or "consciousness" or even "sentient consciousness" involves a great deal more than "electricity".

However, technologies being what they are, a tool, are not at all suited for explanations of this magnitude, at this time.

Nor, do I really think, they will ever be. The "science" is all moot, as even "near" death experiences are just that, and nothing more. Plus, there's not really any money in it...

To explain it all, one would really have to die...

And then they would have their very personal answer.

I don't mean "die" and be "revived", I mean really, actually die. (Not passing "Go", not collecting "$200)

And communication with the aforesaid, goes into the relm of a carnival...

or other things... which, being said, would be likened to the same level, and quite possibly... shoud be.

I don't know, and no one living does.
_________________________
Where we're going, we don't need roads.

Top
#16810 - 12/24/08 05:25 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: daevid777]
daevid777 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 951
Loc: Hell's Pisshole, Texas
Maybe... a Robocop??? Just hoping...
_________________________
Where we're going, we don't need roads.

Top
#17025 - 12/27/08 01:05 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
This is not by any means a scientific explanation of anything, but I thought it worth attempting to explain why I’ve chosen to take the standpoint that I have on believing in sentience after death (that some part of us survives the death of the physical shell). The prelude, so to speak, of what lead to my researching the afterlife. Humanity by nature is inquisitive, always wanting to know the “why” when looking at anything in the world around us. It’s simply not enough to accept that it’s there, we have to know how it works the way it does and what purpose it serves. We are concerned with the evolution of the self, not just how we develop physically, but also how we evolve to gain knowledge and become enlightened. There are some people out there who are sheep, essentially who are afraid and who allow themselves to sink into that fear (addiction, lack of responsibility, nihilistic thought processes) because they find it easier not to think about the greater picture. These people serve their purpose, existence needs duality and I’d like to think that it’s just the path those people need to take in order to gain a specific type of understanding. But at the core of all humanity is the quest for understanding, to become something more. It’s almost like we have an ingrained understanding somewhere underneath that this life was really just meant to be a temporary experience.

In essence, it seems reasonable to me that we were built to evolve. Some could argue that this is some sort of evolutionary mechanism, and to some degree I think the need to find some sort of spiritual connection is since cultures across the globe have done so since the beginning of time. I see it in a way that goes beyond that though. Finding connection to forces greater than ourselves - be it the worship of the sun and moon, superstitions around the elements, or more modern Judeo-Christian religions - is different than the personal quest to evolve and experience. One is social, the other is personal. To me the deeply personal quest for enlightenment, in whatever form it may take, is something we were born with and exists for a reason that goes beyond mere evolution. Hell, if it were purely a measure of evolution, animals would have it too since they’ve been evolving for as long as we have, in some cases longer. This is just my personal opinion. What I have experienced in my own body and mind has led me to reach this conclusion, and I am of course willing to accept that some people just find it easier to believe in nothing. It leaves them accountable for nothing, it allows for them to wallow in self-pity and not have to consider much beyond their temporary reality. Frankly it seems like the coward’s way out, walking blindly through life, not having to think outside the box.

Top
#17031 - 12/27/08 03:30 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Evolution is not an a to b process in which some animals are 'ahead' of others. Things that adapt best to their environment tend to survive, and that's about all there is to is.

Take the shark, or the alligator, as examples. They have existed pretty much as is for millions of years. Does this make them less evolved' than us? Well no.

It makes them ideally suited to their environment to the point that no mutation has managed to improve this condition in all that time.

Our relatively high intelligence is not a sign that we are 'more evolved' than anything else, it is just the direction we randomly ended up taking. Our intellect is the 'weapon' that has allowed us to continue to survive, much like the speed of a cheetah or the long neck of the giraffe. With each passing generation the longer necks of the giraffe allows greater and greater potential food sources, so too has our intellect allowed for greater and greater survivability.

There is nothing mystical about it.

And as for the 'cowards way out', well I guess that is a matter of perspective. To me it seems the the one who would rather manufacture fantasy to keep oneself comfortable is the one lacking the courage to face reality.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#17035 - 12/27/08 05:39 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: daevid777]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
Satanists do seem rather cynical when it comes to the subject of the afterlife, more so than any group I have previously encountered. Generally you have the two polar opposites of those who believe everything they are told, and those who disbelieve any evidence they are presented with and who are completely convinced that nothing can exists beyond the realm of parlor tricks. It would seem that Satanists tend to lean more toward the latter end. Are we watching too much of the news and absorbing too much of the negativity the people around us have to offer? Or are Satanists naturally inclined to be a distrusting bunch? Personally I can’t help but feel that there’s more negativity in human civilization than there is positive. Call it survival, selfishness, an accident of nature, whatever you will...

I have always defined myself as an open-minded skeptic. With that being said, I don’t think that every paranormal/supernatural encounter is something that has just been made up. There are SO many reports of ghosts, psychic accuracy, and things that go beyond the realm of mere coincidence that it’s not logical to assume that it’s all a hoax. It is logical to assume that this is not the one and only dimension which exists. And you are right, Daevid, there are many things we cannot possibly know for certain until we’re actually dead. Science has only come so far, technology can only tell us so much. Even if you look at the era we’re living in now, so much of it would have been deemed an absolute impossibility a hundred years ago. But then again, I bet people say that every hundred years...

I’ve asked this question before, but I think it got lost in conversation and was never really addressed. Has anyone seen the television show Psychic Children? I believe it’s on A&E. I’d like to know what people’s thoughts are on that.

Top
#17036 - 12/27/08 05:59 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

Generally you have the two polar opposites of those who believe everything they are told, and those who disbelieve any evidence they are presented with and who are completely convinced that nothing can exists beyond the realm of parlor tricks.

And then there are those of us on the third side. Over here we see all kinds of possibility in the universe, but stay intellectually honest in that we are not convinced by shadows.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#17044 - 12/27/08 11:50 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
And then there are those of us on the third side. Over here we see all kinds of possibility in the universe, but stay intellectually honest in that we are not convinced by shadows.

When drawing a comparison in which one’s self can be found anywhere amidst the polar opposites of two extremes, there is more than just a third side. The obvious insinuation is that everyone falls somewhere in between. It’s nice that you’ve decided to stake out a place for yourself but ultimately all you’ve done is successfully repeated what I just said using less accurate terminology and inserted yourself into a conversation merely to reiterate a point that’s already been made. It’s more than a little pointless.

Top
#17056 - 12/28/08 07:08 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
The reason why we humans dominate the earth is partly due to luck, partly due to us being able to adapt artificially. While other lifeforms have to rely on lucky mutations that give their genes an edge in conditions like sudden climate change, we humans can imagine future conditions and anticipate before they are happening. In some way we are ahead of other animals simply because abstract reasoning gives us that edge in what is essentially a game of throwing dies.
This edge and the direct and genetic benefit is why we invested so much in our brains. Although not invested as in consciously driven. Smart people tend to survive better than dumb in natural conditions and following from that, they will outproduce them. In artificial conditions (like societies and civilizations) which protect all alike, it can be argued that dumb will outproduce smart again. After all, if there is no natural culling mechanism, inevitably the average will dominate the above-average simply by outproducing them. Therefor the best (and inevitable) thing to happen is a collapse of civilizations. I think this might be interpreted as a cyclic history and explain why after periods of enlightenment we have periods of darkness and stagnation.

But even with those ups and downs, we'll have a gradual process towards what I see as an improved condition. Still, this evolved condition doesn't necessarily lead to a metaphysical condition, at least none that can't, at one point, be artificially created. Where you seem to twist the point, is at the level of fear. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that much of everything metaphysical, whether it is religious, superstitious or pseudo-scientic is exactly there because of fear. Humans were indeed inquisitive but what happens when they arrived at questions that couldn't be directly or logically answered (or were to hard to handle) is that they started to build explanations that at the same time provided comfort zones. Regard it as what some tell kids when their pet died: little bunny is in bunny heaven now. It's exactly that what we have done for ages; invent theories and explanations that give some degree of comfort to people being afraid of certain anwers to certain questions. One of the first severe problems lifeforms that develop a self encounter is the realization that there was a point before the self and there will be a point after the self. What they also realized was that life is brutal and not fair at all. So they have developed answers to address that problem and build comfortable explanations. They are all build to handle fear. Throughout history those explanations have evolved and became bigger and more complex but the basic routine in it is still finding and providing comfort and surpress fear.
So without twisting this concept, one has to conclude that a materialist is essentially more brave in being able to disrupt those illusions and see life and his position in it without that blanket.

I worked with a Muslim once and at one point he asked me what my religion was. I told him I don't believe and he answered; that's really tough. I didn't think much of it then but he was right. It is so much easier to think there is someone out there loving you, or being part of a great plan or having some options out there after this.

So essentially I do think that your claim it being so much easier to embrace nothing is you trying to turn the weakness of needing comfort in an intellectual statement of strength, which I fail to see in it.

D.

Top
#17066 - 12/28/08 01:30 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada


Hey look there, chicky, it was you that painted the ridiculous dichotomy that was patently nothing more than a thinly veiled insult to those that do not accept your fantastical belief system at face value. Do you even read the unfocused stream of consciousness crap that you write, or does it just flow out of you like so much unexamined diarrhea?

My point was very valid, in that the picture you painted was utter bullshit and NEEDED clarification.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#17067 - 12/28/08 02:00 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
You’ve just illustrated my point exceptionally well. Some of us are actually capable of having an intelligent conversation without resorting to immaturity and insults. For all the posts you decide to make on this forum, it would be nice if they actually contributed something more meaningful than one-line comments and reiterating the obvious. Unlike you I put some thought into what I have to say, and I have never insulted anyone simply for not sharing my point of view. Just because you fail to comprehend something does not mean it is “bullshit” to anyone else, it just means that YOU have failed to comprehend it. Seriously, stop acting so immature. This forum is supposed to be about the intelligent exchange of ideas, and not everyone is going to have the same opinion. You either need to learn to live with that or find somewhere more suited to your line of conversing.
Top
#17071 - 12/28/08 02:18 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Oh yes..the forum is literally filled with great content you have contributed..unlike me with all my one liners.

Anyway, I started out being civil to you, but you continually drone on about ridiculous shit and when called on it continually retreat into abstractions and insults,ignoring all levels of reasonable discourse while all the while pretending there is some level of empirical grounding to what you say. It's dishonest and just because you seem to think you are attractive is not enough reason to smile and nod along.

It would be different if somewhere in your thousand word posts there was some sort of logic or structured argument or ANYTHING for me to sink my teeth into, but there just isn't. It's all fluff. Let's sum up what you have had to say so far:

"I believe in the afterlife because I feel like I should, and no amount of reasonable discourse will break my faith"

How's that for a one liner?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#17072 - 12/28/08 02:20 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
Diavolo, I do respect your opinion even though I may not entirely agree with it. You say a lot of what I’m thinking, even if we do disagree on some points. I’ve always looked at those belonging to organized religions, blinding following the bible or any other religious text as being foolish and weak for the same reasons you described. Anyone can write a book and claim that it was divinely inspired. Why people would choose to blindly adhere to the written word of some imaginary being is something I have never personally been able to comprehend. But the beliefs I hold are based on what I have witnessed and experienced personally. They have nothing to do with imaginary beings, dogma, religion. I walk though life building on those experiences, reasoning, questioning, wanting to understand. Call it a quest for enlightenment or just an unusual personality trait, it’s just the way I’ve always been.

To some I think it makes sense to spend their existence focused purely on the material, for others such of myself, well, I just want to know more. As a Satanist I don’t think there’s anything unnatural about that. LaVey’s philosophies are very logical and well-written, which was what drew me to them more than a decade ago. I’ve always believed that life is for the experience, something that should be indulged in with responsibility. You only have so much time here, so you might as well make the most of it. With that being said we all have different types of interests. One of mine just happens to be a desire to understand, even the most taboo of subjects.

Top
#17075 - 12/28/08 02:38 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
But of course we all have different interests and there is nothing wrong with being inquisitive and trying to find answers to questions. It's not as if I was born as "material D." I've had my share of interests and dwelling and finding light in certain subjects. I also had my share of experiences which I first explained in a totally different perspective than I do nowadays. If I see people talk about ritual and stuff, it gives me goosebumps and I think; djeez. The same as when I see people talk about afterlife or ghosts, UFOs, god or even things like the electric universe but essentially I do not see it as unsatanic or unnatural. At worst I see it as not logical or ungrounded. It's the very logic, lack of logic and evidence or the total absurdity of certain subjects that made me find my answers. And although I do say my answers, I am convinced that in many subjects those are the true answers. I also would like to know more but find the material level so complex and eloquently explained that I do not see the need to spend time investigating beyond it. Some things are just not worth spending too much time at because you will never find the right answers. And some thoughts are potentially very dangerous because they include consequences that trigger effects that are negative to one's will or choice. So I prefer to accept the most plausible or logical answer and go with that. I can be wrong and I'm not so close minded that when I am wrong, I'll stick to my previous position. I'll adapt but to make me adapt, they not only need a pretty good argument, they also need to provide me evidence.

I consider nothing taboo. This forum might give a warped view on what is taboo but in reality, NOT believing in afterlife or NOT believing in ghosts seems to be a bigger taboo than believing in it all. The scientific, material or logical views are in reality the minority. But they have the most weight because they inevitably destroy most arguments in favor.

D.

Top
#17076 - 12/28/08 02:44 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
If you are going to comment on the entire thread and what I’ve written here, you may actually want to read the entirety of it or not comment at all. Several of the things you just stated directly contradict what has already been said.


 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
you continually drone on about ridiculous shit and when called on it continually retreat into abstractions and insults


I’ve never insulted anyone for having an opinion of their own and not agreeing with mine. That’s something you made up, and you won’t find it anywhere on this thread. So if you’re going to make accusations, at least have something to back them up with. In reality you’re the one trying to do all the insulting. Why you are petty enough to carry on a conversation with the need to insult people is beyond me. I know very few people who possess that trait.


 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
just because you seem to think you are attractive is not enough reason to smile and nod along


That one I had to laugh at. Could you please point out to me even ONE place where I stated anything about thinking I am attractive, and therefore people should “smile and nod” when I say something? I have never made such a statement, again something you made up that will not be found anywhere in this thread.


 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
no amount of reasonable discourse will break my faith


I had previously stated very clearly that this is simply my opinion based on experience and that I would be more than willing to change my mind and conclusions should experience point me in another direction. I’ve also stated that I’m interested in hearing other people’s opinions and perspectives, commented on the fact that SOME people here have given me something to think about, and never stated anything about faith. Again, you’ve contradicted what has previously been stated. You conclusions are in error as you’ve not actually read what it is you’re commenting on.

Top
#17077 - 12/28/08 02:47 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Yawn.

I'm not getting into a pissing match with you. I have already said what needed to be said.

Continue with your faith based drivel, by all means.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#17113 - 12/29/08 02:25 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
One of the things I’ve always found interesting is the studies on hypnosis and hypnotherapy in the treatment and prevention of pain, especially as an alternative to chemical anesthesia during surgery. People have different levels of activity in different parts of the brain, thus making some more susceptible than others to external suggestion. The fact that such a thing can be achieved at all is amazing, and it really goes to demonstrate that we are only beginning to scratch the surface of what the human mind is capable of. We can no longer define the reality of pain as something that can definitively be experienced, and vice versa, just as experiments wherein a person has been touched with an ordinary object is told it’s a burning hot poker and develops a third degree burn. The science behind it has gained enough credibility that in certain hospitals hypnosis is being used as a successful alternative to anesthesia. Just one example of the complexities of consciousness, one more question to ponder in terms of how connected to the physical it really is, if one should choose to ponder such questions.

I theorize that there is more than one dimension and what makes up the essence of “us” can exist in more than just the one our senses are geared toward perceiving right now. This explains ghosts as well as psychic phenomena, being that in some manners this essence is obviously compatible with this dimension. I think that a shift occurs when the physical body is no longer viable - a quantum phase transition stemming from quantum entanglement.

There are numerous examples regarding the limitations of human perception. Some species are able to see more colors than others, for pigeons the world appears to move in slow motion because of the way their brains work, cats can hear higher vibration sounds that we wouldn’t even know exist without technology, even dogs can‘t see the television the same way we can as the signal appears distorted. Everything anything or anyone perceives is a product of how their brains have adjusted through evolution. It does not mean there is not more out there - in fact, in all probability there is more out there that we cannot perceive compared to what we can. According to quantum physics, everything in our environment is vibrating at a certain frequency. The low vibrations and high vibrations are just what we happen to be able to perceive. Just imagine would you would find in the higher and lower vibratory realms beyond what we are currently able to measure. That is where I would propose non-physical sentience becomes possible. Again, just my thoughts on the matter.

Top
#17117 - 12/29/08 03:02 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
daevid777 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 951
Loc: Hell's Pisshole, Texas
So, you talk about "experiences" - please, at least give someone who's endured this whole thing a bone...

What - experiences? I don't want to know, I gotta know...

So give it up, and others, please by all means, no one's going to think you're crazier than you already are.

So... let's go... here it is.... on with the show.... give it to me.... c'mon.... now's the time..... any moment now....... 1,2,3, go.............
_________________________
Where we're going, we don't need roads.

Top
#17127 - 12/29/08 04:47 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: daevid777]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
The science behind it has gained enough credibility that in certain hospitals hypnosis is being used as a successful alternative to anesthesia. Just one example of the complexities of consciousness, one more question to ponder in terms of how connected to the physical it really is, if one should choose to ponder such questions.
I have doubts about that part.. maybe you should provide some links with information about it from a recommended official site? Not from spiritual pseudoscientifique assholes who THINK they can explain everything..

 Quote:
I theorize that there is more than one dimension and what makes up the essence of “us” can exist in more than just the one our senses are geared toward perceiving right now. This explains ghosts as well as psychic phenomena, being that in some manners this essence is obviously compatible with this dimension. I think that a shift occurs when the physical body is no longer viable - a quantum phase transition stemming from quantum entanglement.

To break your bubble: you can't theorize. You only have the IDEA there is more than 1 dimension and you have the IDEA ghosts exist. You can only theorize if you have proven it can indeed exist or if there is trustable evidence.

 Quote:
The low vibrations and high vibrations are just what we happen to be able to perceive. Just imagine would you would find in the higher and lower vibratory realms beyond what we are currently able to measure. That is where I would propose non-physical sentience becomes possible.

Being quite scientifique I must say your conclusion is quite stupid. This for the mere fact vibrations have a frequency. Frequencies have certain limits. The pain in the ass for most of the spiritual thinking persons is the plain fact we already know the limits of all frequencies within this universe. Or to be more correct on the system "earth". I'm not going to talk about the universe cause more than 90% of it is still unknown.. But I highly doubt I can be transported somewhere in the universe to have a tea with "god" or other deceased persons.

 Quote:
So... let's go... here it is.... on with the show.... give it to me.... c'mon.... now's the time..... any moment now....... 1,2,3, go.............

Welcome back to the show called "How high is your bullshit factor?" with our host "...."
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#17155 - 12/29/08 05:35 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I know of monks that can endure extreme conditions and decrease their pain levels enormously and although it is great, I do not see any disconnection between the physical and the consciousness in it. Of course the consciousness can be affected and we can warp natural reactions or even alter personalities through hypnosis and such but it all stays within the brain = consciousness niche. It's not because someone can suppress pain that the actual cause-physical reaction isn't there. Feeling pain serves to make you know there is something wrong. Suppressing it doesn't change the fact that the whole wound-signaling mechanism still works. But I don't disagree it is fascinating what some can do and to what extremes.

The experiments where people are touched with a normal object while their mind is confused and show wounds accordingly is unknown to me. To a degree it sounds illogical, following that I could stab a hypnotized person to death with a banana which seems rather absurd but I'll look into it, if I find it somewhere.

About ghosts things get complicated. Even if we assume there is another dimension and let's also assume ghosts are some sort of transition, isn't it weird that all those conflicting things happens? We need mediums to talk with our departed loved ones but at the same times ghosts are perfectly capable of showing themselves, even talk in an understandable or recordable manner. Some are ghostly but at the same time they make noise when walking around, affect temperature, are able to throw around stuff. How can some transition suddenly be physical enough to have weight, or put marks or writing on stuff? How come they all talk cryptic when using mediums but are at times perfectly understandable when writing stuff down or talking in haunted houses. How come some can play instruments and produce sounds from those instruments that can hardly be expected to also end up in a transitional stage? Why are some visible and some not. How come we never see ghostly great apes when great apes unmistakably have some sort of crude consciousness and self?
Ghosts and all the appearances and things they can do or apparently do are so contradictory or plain absurd, I have a pretty hard time taking the subject seriously.

I agree our perception is limited and that some animals see more, less or different things than us but there is one thing that sees it all: science. Science sees what animals see, as they see what humans see. They see everything at every explorable frequency. If they don't see it, we will never see it and in that case, whatever is there or not will be forever unknown to us. Hypothesizing what could be there and what not, is a waste of time. It only serves the function of letting the option open for what one wishes to be there. It's where some stick god, others the fairies and some other ghosts or metaphysical sentience. It's an argument that can't be countered because it isn't an argument to start with I fear. It's like saying I'm 150 years old but in Hjougo-years. If none knows what Hjougo-years are, you hardly can call me wrong.

D.

Top
#17173 - 12/29/08 11:49 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: daevid777]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
I have a ghost cat in my house.
I think its the ghost of my dead cat Fred
or it might be a little deamon.
I dont really know.
On occassion, when you are lying in bed under the covers, it jumps up on the bed walks around, then lays down.
When you look, there is no cat there.
Yeah well, it sounds weird, but it happens.
I think my ex-boyfriend felt it on the bed once too.

Morgan

Ps.
I am not inviting ghost hunters to camp at my house and sleep in my bed.
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#17176 - 12/30/08 12:13 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Morgan]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
As I have mentioned, I have had 'experiences' as well, that I can not seem to explain. I pretty much just ignore it and chalk it up to 'future science'. Just a reminder that we have a ways to go still.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#17183 - 12/30/08 03:48 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
daevid777 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 951
Loc: Hell's Pisshole, Texas
 Quote:
I am not inviting ghost hunters to camp at my house and sleep in my bed.


Well, with that, I think you just fucked up my next great idea!

But, you did answer truly the thing I was asking, however, putting "labels" (ah fuck, who cares)... it is what it is.

Truly, I'd love to believe in this thing, and I'd like to find a way to "find out". The methods for doing such a thing, and there are "methods", however, the resulting "knowledge" would be considered "subjective" by modern science, and therefore of no "scientific" use.

But, let's consider this, perhaps what Tala de Sade is proposing, I'd like to imagine.

Since, as has been stated, over and over again, ad nauseum... on both sides (mine included)... that this is either complete bullshit (possibly, likely), or there is something to this (like there could be a yellow dog with purple spots floating out there somewhere around Neptune... you don't know, assholes).

Let us, with our skeptical, ultra-scientific, evil minds, accept the "possibility" for a brief second of time...

And, let us use the "Scientific Method" to figure this thing out. So everyone's content.

How about it? Now, where do we start? Or are we going to make this thread last as long as fucking possible, refutations upon refutaions, with no other end in site?

Anyone game?



Edited by daevid777 (12/30/08 03:49 AM)
_________________________
Where we're going, we don't need roads.

Top
#17196 - 12/30/08 11:54 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: daevid777]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
That's pretty hard because first you need to create some theory of the "unprovable" happening and then you need to provide proof or evidence or circumstances in which it might happen.

Even when turning my skeptical mind in guess or hope modus, how can I ever do something with a hypothesis like; another dimension or a transcending state. I can give a multitude of assumptions about that dimension and that state, make some eloquently scientific but what I can't avoid is that all answers will be equally valid. So even if I'd say that the other dimension is hidden in my coffee cup and I can access it by farting and burping at the same time, I do make an as valid statement as any other.

The main problem in this is that any theory not backed up by evidence or proof can only be agreed or disagreed with. You can say I believe this, and frankly, when not providing evidence, it is nothing but belief, and all I or anyone else can do is claim it is probably right or wrong according arguments pro of contra. The fact that there is argument is because people accept the possibility for a second and then tell why they agree or why not. So essentially, we are already doing this the whole time.

D.

Top
#17208 - 12/30/08 05:00 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: daevid777]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

How about it? Now, where do we start? Or are we going to make this thread last as long as fucking possible, refutations upon refutaions, with no other end in site?


Of course. I'm always game to learn something new. Unfortunately, there is nothing but hot air here. The extremely infrequent things presented as 'evidence' in this thread have without exception been the easily debunked words of known con artists. Apparently some around here have EXTREMELY LOW standards for what constitutes 'evidence'.

We can't approach this scientifically without any real data to go by. There is none. All we have is one girl with unshakable faith, and nothing to back it up aside from 'experiences' she refuses to cite.

Nothing from nothing is nothing.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#17231 - 12/30/08 08:12 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
As the boys said, proof, undenyable proof isn't possible.
Too many variables, theories, ideas, and subjective personal perspectives.

Just cause a "thing" appears once doesn't mean it will happen again, or that standing on your head will make it happen twice.

I really don't know what it is sometimes on my bed, and a big part of me doesn't care as long as its not breathing and I don't have to kill it.

What that means in the big picture of this thread is that nobody really knows, and all it comes down to is belief in a personal perspective of what it is or may be.

I would be more happy to know my cat is dead and at rest than wandering as a ghost part time.

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#17235 - 12/30/08 09:50 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Morgan]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
No. It is not a matter of 'nobody knows' therefore all views are equal. That is silly.

Nobody knows for sure if there is a teacup orbiting alpha centauri. That does not mean there is a 50/50 chance either way, or even that there is a one in eight gazillion chance that its true. Believing that would be downright ridiculous.

Proof and evidence are separate and distinct concepts. Believing anything is true without evidence is downright STUPID.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#17237 - 12/30/08 10:07 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dimitri]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
[quote=Dimitri]
 Quote:
I have doubts about that part.. maybe you should provide some links with information about it from a recommended official site?


Hypnosis was first officially recognized as a viable therapeutic tool by the British Government through the Hypnotism Act in 1952. Then, in 1958 both the British and the American Medical Associations (AMA) sanctioned the official use of hypnosis by physicians. In 1958, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) also approved hypnotherapy for use by professionally responsible individuals. Here are a few links regarding the current use of hypnosis in hospitals as an alternative to painkillers and anesthesia (called hypnoanesthesia):

“Most recognized here in the West for his use of hypnosis in surgery is James Esdaile, though his method found much better reception in India. Modern day hypnotists have modified the techniques developed by Esdaile, Elliotson, Parker, Cloquet and other hardy pioneers of the past century. The most significant developments in this area include the use of autohypnosis, hypnotic suggestions to improve the postoperative period, glove anesthesia and autogenic training (which employs a day run of the intended surgery). This type of conditioning protects the patient against surprise, fear, and apprehension: the pain threshold is automatically raised by “blocking” the neurophysiologic paths that transmit the painful afferent impulses. Hypnoanesthesia has been used successfully for many major and minor surgical procedures. Since the use of hypnosis allays fear and tension, hypnotic anesthesia is easily facilitated, anoxemia is reduced and, because of the profound relaxation, less analgesia and chemical anesthesia are required. In some patients the traditional preoperative administration of narcotics can be eliminated even in those who are presently able to enter the light stages of hypnosis.”
http://www.hypnoticadvancements.com/applications-surgery.htm

“Hypnosis has been used as the sole anesthetic in major surgical procedures from the 1800’s to the present. The incision and physical effects are obviously quite real; therefore, the pain is not just in the head, but at the surgical site also. However, there is not pain until it gets to the brain. That is why surgery with hypnosis is a very powerful and dramatic application of the same principles and skills that one can experience through hetero-hypnosis (hypnosis directed by some one else) or self-hypnosis (self directed hypnosis). Hypnosis actually takes the hurt out of pain.”
http://www.hypnosis.org/catalog/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=102

“From this study, we conclude that hypnoanesthesia is an effective technique for providing relief of intraoperative and postoperative pain in endocrine cervical surgery. The technique results in high patient satisfaction and better surgical convalescence. This technique can therefore be used in most well-chosen patients and reduces the socioeconomic impact of hospitalization.”
http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/10630345?src=emed_ckb_ref_0

“The first notable advantage to using hypnosis as an adjunct to chemical anesthesia is that of requiring far less amounts of any chemical anesthesia than normally required. This in turn has the effect of reducing deaths in surgery due to chemical incompatibilities with patients. The Mayos have had an unbroken record of about seventeen thousand cases without any fatalities due to the anesthetic ever since employing the use of hypnosis.
Additionally, patients have far more energy and vitality left after surgery for recuperation, and hypnotic suggestions for quick recovery and rehabilitation have also been used to help with great success.”
http://www.hypnoticadvancements.com/applications-anesthesia.htm

Top
#17238 - 12/30/08 10:20 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dimitri]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
To break your bubble: you can't theorize. You only have the IDEA there is more than 1 dimension and you have the IDEA ghosts exist. You can only theorize if you have proven it can indeed exist or if there is trustable evidence.


THEORY: A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact; An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

You’re absolutely incorrect in asserting that I cannot “theorize” about something. By the very definition of the word, that is exactly what I’m doing. I was talking about quantum phases and transition, which has something science has already begun to define. Theories, by the very nature of the word, stem from “ideas” as do all great discoveries. It is your logic that is incorrect on this matter. Or, as you would say, “your conclusion is quite stupid.”

Top
#17239 - 12/30/08 10:34 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dimitri]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
The pain in the ass for most of the spiritual thinking persons is the plain fact we already know the limits of all frequencies within this universe. Or to be more correct on the system "earth". I'm not going to talk about the universe cause more than 90% of it is still unknown..


What an absolute contradiction. On one hand you claim that we know the limits of all frequencies in the universe, and then you say we just know the limit of all the frequencies within the earth, and then you claim that you believe 90% of all the universe is still unknown. Well over 90% of the universe remains unknown, and given the infinitesimal portion of it that we occupy, how could you logically conclude that we are aware of even 1%? So being that you’re the one who claims to have all the logic here, please humor us all and explain how you arrived at the conclusion that the inhabitants of this planet possess the knowledge of 10% of the universe?

Furthermore, we do NOT know the limits within every frequency within the earth or within the universe. How did you come up with that idea? Where is your proof? How can you possibly claim awareness of all frequencies if there are things out there we cannot even begin to perceive without technology, and technology has only reached a limited level of advancement?

Top
#17242 - 12/30/08 10:55 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
"What that means in the big picture of this thread is that nobody really knows, and all it comes down to is belief in a personal perspective of what it is or may be."

That means no matter what we say, no one will agree. That doesn't mean everything is equal, it just means no one will ever agree.


"Proof and evidence are separate and distinct concepts"
HUH?
Evidence is the basis of proof.
Without them nothing can be proved to be true.

"Believing anything is true without evidence is downright STUPID."
No shit, that was my point.

M
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#17243 - 12/30/08 11:08 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
I do believe there is a logical explanation for everything, even if in some cases we have yet to find it. Something as simple as the changing of the weather once seemed completely random, people thought that perhaps it would never be explained, but now it’s very commonplace knowledge and people don’t give much thought to it. Perhaps the fact that there is so much out there that is not able to be explained that garners so many questions and theories as to what the nature of it really is why looking into these things is something gradually becoming more commonplace (at least where not still in the era of being deemed witches for having an open mind, most of the time at least). I don’t think I’m anything other than someone willing to participate in that theoretical debate and chose side A over side B. There may be at least one moron out there who thinks I have some sort of “unshakable faith” despite my stating numerous times that my opinions are open to change with the evidence as it finds me, as you have sighted the same thing about your opinions.

Regarding the questions you have about ghosts and mediums, I could give you my opinions as to why things happen the way they do based on some of the things I’ve read, but you would do just as well to find a book you’d think you’d enjoy on the subject and read it from someone who has dedicated more time to this study. At least the reasons when and why ghosts appear are based in the physical realm and thus easier to explain. Even psychic phenomena has been linked to specific parts of the brain being more active and alert than others, but I’m not sure precisely how many studies have been done on it.

Top
#17246 - 12/30/08 11:29 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Morgan]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Fair. I realize people come to their own conclusions on stuff. But in my opinion it is far less important what you conclude than the method used to arrive at that conclusion. Some conclusions are reached through scientific (read- real) methods, others, through wild speculation, psychosis, raw guesswork, or blind faith.

I guess the reason this bothers me a little is probably similar to why normal every day working people that happen to be muslim are bothered by suicide bombings in the name of allah. In a sense.

As I have stated I KNOW there is something to all of this based on MY personal experience. I will not take that experience and manufacture a bunch of bullshit to support a certain conclusion I want to be true, however. I think the why not should be obvious right? When I see people pushing their new-age quasi-mysticism in droves, it makes the entire mess seem like utter bullshit. When people come at it from a magical minded standpoint the rational just laugh, and the entire subject gets dismissed out of hand. This is a tragedy.

 Quote:

"Proof and evidence are separate and distinct concepts"
HUH?
Evidence is the basis of proof.
Without them nothing can be proved to be true.

Seldom will you hear the words 'scientific proof' thrown around, and if you do you should be very skeptical. The reason? Nothing is every really 'proven' scientifically. The second something is not falsifiable it leaves the realm of science and enters the realm of mysticism.

'Proof' is hardline, dogmatic, and rarely what it purports to be. Evidence is factual information that supports a certain claim of proposition.

What we do have that we think of as proven are just theories in which the evidence has stacked up in favor of a certain theory or proposition without enough counter evidence to unseat it from favor.

So yes, 'proof', and 'evidence' are vastly different concepts, at least in this particular context.

 Quote:

No shit, that was my point.

Yep. I don't really think we disagree on anything important.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#17299 - 12/31/08 06:36 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
daevid777 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 951
Loc: Hell's Pisshole, Texas
Fuck. This is why I never, ever, never, ever, never ever wanted to take a look at the philosophy thread... (sorry, Mequa).

Please, listen here folks, I'm a man of "action", not a great man of action, like Indiana Jones or the Incredible Hulk or anything, I am what I am. I'm more like a pathetic version of Robin Williams' "Popeye"...

What I'm asking, and nobody's telling... is... what do you DO?

Now, if your content with philosophizing the hell out of this thing, then by all means, knock yourselves out, and you could probably do that by reading the first page... if you ever need a sedative, try this thread... not drugs...

Kids.... don't do drugs, just read the philosophy forum's latest... public service, I do my best.

So, before Tala wakes up, what are the methods, what can be done?

Instance: I made a "magic mirror" a ways back... haven't tried it, and I'm honestly scared to do it now.

Any of you big, bad Satanists looked into the "magic mirror"? What's the harm in trying, anyway, it's all bullshit.

Too much information, perhaps.
_________________________
Where we're going, we don't need roads.

Top
#17303 - 12/31/08 06:57 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: daevid777]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
Daevid777: ever tried to look at philosophy as "white people's warfare"?
Black people fight with sticks, spears, knives and other weapons. We western people are more advanced and fight with words.
Which actually leads to the same damn thing...



Edited by Dimitri (12/31/08 07:16 AM)
Edit Reason: spell-check
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#17304 - 12/31/08 06:59 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I do also believe that there is a logical explanation for everything and that we just didn't discover some because of a lack of factors (evidence) to explain or construct that logical answer. I do however also believe that if it turns out we do not live in a 3-dimensional environment but a multi-dimensional, logic will at one point fail as a tool to explain certain things. Analogous, in a multidimensional environment 43 x 2 = 15.7 might only be true is A is lightly obese yellow.

We're both at opposing sides when it comes to phenomena like non-physical sentience and transcending consciousness and while I think my answers are more correct than yours and you'll probably think otherwise, -if not, we'd both wouldn't be embracing those answers- at some levels, truth isn't a factor in any of these answers because we both can't provide enough evidence for them. We can give evidence pro or contra for factors concerning the concept but ultimately, I nor you can at any point convince the other of their right. All we can do is give reasons why we think it is plausible or not and let the other do with it what they want. Still, I do think you are wrong in your assumption and that the logical explanation might be far simpler than you assume it to be but again, I can't provide evidence for that. I can only provide reasons why I think something is plausible or not.

I read a lot about ghosts in the past and although one can distill some overlapping essence out of it all, the bulk of all sightings does contradict any general theory created. Out of all sightings, there are so much features happening and absurdities that no matter what consensus one proposes, it will unavoidably be discredited by first, second or third hand information. Ultimately you'll end up in the same game rational Christians try to play, dissecting the bible and cutting out what doesn't fit to make their rational approach towards god work.

D.


Edited by Diavolo (12/31/08 07:02 AM)

Top
#17307 - 12/31/08 07:51 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
daevid777 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 951
Loc: Hell's Pisshole, Texas
Yeah, yeah, yeah, but, what have you done, what have you tried? That's all, why is that so hard a question? If you haven't done shit, then I guess, you can philosophize a bit more, I guess I can read a few thousand more paragraphs, if you have done something, then let it all out, and here's the big chance, here's the experience, you guy's aren't fucking listening at all are you?, here it is, the thing, life after death, now just tell me something new:
_________________________
Where we're going, we don't need roads.

Top
#17312 - 12/31/08 08:41 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: daevid777]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I don't think I get the question. What have you done? Like going to a graveyard and talk to the dead? Like sitting in the fields at night waiting on a UFO to pass and have a quick interview with the aliens? I'm not a primate. Do I really need to die before I can have an opinion about it?

If experience was in all ways a valid measurement for truth, we'd still be burning the witches.

D.

Top
#17315 - 12/31/08 09:06 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

I'm not a primate.

Yes, you are.

Primates, which includes humans and the nonhuman primates, the apes, monkeys, lemurs, tree-shrews, lorises, aye-ayes, pottos, bush babies and tarsiers. They are characterized by being plantigrade, pentadactyl, by having clavicles, a complete dentition without specialized molars, a voluminous and complicated brain and a supple hand with a thumb that can be approximated to any of the fingers. They have excellent sight and are highly adapted to an arboreal existence, including the possession by some of a prehensile tail.

Also, I bet you would burn pretty.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#17318 - 12/31/08 09:15 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Le Sigh.

Anyways, what experience? So we're going to shift the path from a subject lacking evidence in so many cases it can't even be disproved and then take the route of experience and act as if THAT would contribute ANYTHING at all in this subject.

That's like scientists giving up on finding a cure for cancer due to the complexity and suggest all might better get on their knees and start burning candles at a picture of Mary. That might work better.

D.

Top
#17321 - 12/31/08 09:30 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
THEORY: A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact; An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

You are lacking this part: are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. So I repeat, you don't have a theory but an idea. Learn to read definitions more carefully. If I take your words literally I can theorize whatever I want. That's not the way science works, that's the way how idiots who try to be important work. If you want to have a theory you must at least have some descent evidence. Wich you don't clearly have wich means --> you have an idea. The best you can have is having a hypothese.

You'd better watch out, you are coming near a point where your intelligence lacks and mine has mastered.


 Quote:
What an absolute contradiction. On one hand you claim that we know the limits of all frequencies in the universe, and then you say we just know the limit of all the frequencies within the earth, and then you claim that you believe 90% of all the universe is still unknown.

I defined 2 systems:
First one is system earth where we know all frequencies.
Second one is system "universe" where we don't know everything about.
I'm not contradicting myself, I divided the problem into 2 separate cases.

 Quote:
How can you possibly claim awareness of all frequencies if there are things out there we cannot even begin to perceive without technology, and technology has only reached a limited level of advancement?

To give you the answer on this part: we humans are already capable to measure a broad wave of frequencies. When the light of the sun reaches us it has a broad spectra of different waves. We already managed to find all the different waves the sun emits. Our technology can measure sound frequencies even a dog can't hear. So I even doubt that you as a human with bad senses can see things technology can't detect. We humans and animals have quite bad senses. We can't see all things nor sense them.
What you are telling me is nothing more then heated bullshit you try to sell. Nothing more, nothing less. I want to believe ghosts exist, but somehow.. there is always something rational which explains certain spooky situations. I have yet to meet a real ghost and even so I'll get my toolkit to see if I'm not hallucinating.
If you want proofs, go visit some scientific websites. I'm quite sure they'll laugh there asses off with you theory. I mean.. Idea.


Edited by Dimitri (12/31/08 09:43 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#17324 - 12/31/08 09:43 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Lalala

 Quote:
THEORY: A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact; An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


Theory: contemplation or speculation.

Lalala

D.


Edited by Diavolo (12/31/08 09:44 AM)

Top
#17325 - 12/31/08 09:45 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
Like I said before:
before you have a real theory you must at least have some decent evidence. Wich she lacks.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#17326 - 12/31/08 09:47 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
You don't need evidence at all to have a theory. You have theories with supporting evidence like the theory of evolution and you have those without supporting evidence like the theory of creation by god. BOTH are theories.

D.

Top
#17327 - 12/31/08 09:55 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
Ah, but actually the "theory of god" isn't really a theory.
Most believers call it that way, but scientifically spoken it's only a mere hypothese. There is no actual proof of him.

There are indeed theories without evidence. Just like there are mathematical functions who can't be proven but actually are quite right. Technically it is wrong to call it a theory but being lazy and to keep it simple for the less intelligent people most call it a "theory" falsly.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#17330 - 12/31/08 11:15 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dimitri]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
You two are equivocating.


Theory, by the scientific definition is a hypothesis supported by voluminous amounts of facts and evidence.

Theory, by the common contemporary usage (which is basically a hijack) is a synonym for 'guess', which is even less than a hypothesis.

Define your terms gentlemen!
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#17331 - 12/31/08 11:16 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Some know when they mess up, swallow and retreat gracefully, others keep digging the hole deeper and deeper.

D.

Top
#17338 - 12/31/08 11:34 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
Think whatever you want diavolo, but dan has got it on the right end. He translated what I was trying to say.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#17345 - 12/31/08 12:56 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Yeah whatever.

To a degree this is getting pathetic. I totally don't agree with what she suggests but I am not bothered that she does. Now apparently people do have a problem with ideas that are not their own, even to such a degree that they start arguing that they can't even call it theory, coz that is so blasphemous towards scientific thinking. It's a theory in the sense as we all understand and use theory on this board and this sudden cock-up about it is nothing but grabbing straws. This board tolerates different ideas and thinking as long as they are presented in an intelligent and debatable form. People that prefer the Borg mentality might feel better at home at the letters. I see nothing wrong with how she presents it and even if I think some ideas are wrong, I do not see the need to suddenly call her stupid or act as if she's a total moron. The fact that she is BLUE might indicate that she probably isn't and deserved the color.

I didn't see anyone call Morgan a fool for believing in her ghost-cat? Why not? Because it isn't safe to bite her? Could we maybe ask the reds or greens to post an opinion of faith so we can call them total idiots too? How many really would dare?
Some here on board make me sick, you are so easily influenced by others behavior it makes me really wonder why the fuck you believe to be a satanist at all. You're nothing but puppets jumping on the biggest wagon. Yes that's also to you Dimitri, a couple of weeks ago you were the care-police and now suddenly you act as if you got teeth. I didn't see you bite anything that didn't have a 'no risk involved' sign. Stop fucking pretending.

And to you guys finding this thread boring, just shut the fuck up and don't submit yourself to what you don't need to. If people here feel like arguing it until 2015, let them fucking do it. Go read something else.

D.

Top
#17346 - 12/31/08 01:16 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
If you were talking to me in any way D, you know that I don't give a fuck what color someones username is. I call bullshit where I see it.

The reason I, for one, did not 'bite' Morgan is because she is not here pretending like she has all this revealed knowledge about the nature of the 'ghost cat afterlife'.

All this, of course, if you were talking to me. If not, lets just make a baby.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#17358 - 12/31/08 04:12 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
Some here on board make me sick, you are so easily influenced by others behavior it makes me really wonder why the fuck you believe to be a satanist at all. You're nothing but puppets jumping on the biggest wagon.


First I’d like to point out that the definition of “theory” that I posted came directly from dictionary.com, so if anyone is really petty enough that they want to argue about something so obvious, go and argue with the dictionary instead of wasting people’s time on this board.

I think your commentary on the evolution of this thread and those within it was quite accurate Diavolo. I’ve been a member of this forum for 9 years and have witnessed similar behavior in the past. Despite it being contradictory to the philosophy of Satanism, some people who call themselves such still feel the need to jump on the bandwagon every now and then. I’d rather be ridiculed for having my own opinion than find some sort of smug comfort in being of the most popular opinion. I also don’t understand why anyone would bother complaining about the length of this thread. It’s obvious that no one is going to be proven right one way or another, and I was never looking to be proven right. The whole point of philosophy is that it’s debatable, the whole point of this forum is intelligent discussion. This is just one example of where the combination leads and no one is being forced to be here.

Top
#17360 - 12/31/08 04:32 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Dan_Dread]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
If you were talking to me in any way D, you know that I don't give a fuck what color someones username is. I call bullshit where I see it.


Your definition of “bullshit” is the fact that I have an opinion, and I have made reference to reasons that I have that opinion. Like Diavolo I have made the speculation that no completely solid evidence exists one way or the other, and have completely acknowledged that any opinion given here by anyone is theirs and theirs alone. So if that is the way you should choose to define “bullshit” you are in exactly the same boat as you accuse me of being in. You have your own opinion and reasons for having that opinion, but you are doing exactly the same thing I am in choosing to discuss your opinion. Unless you’re actually referring to the fact that you are willing to discuss your own opinion as being bullshit as well, your “bullshit where I see it” statement is completely hypocritical.

Top
#17363 - 12/31/08 05:46 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Succubus666 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
I’ve heard so much about The Holographic Universeby Michael Talbot that I purchased a copy to read at some point in the near future. If anyone has read it, I’d like to know what you thought. There is some information on it here:


http://twm.co.nz/holoUni.html

The Holographic Universe is a “must read” for anyone with an open, inquiring mind and a curiosity about the cosmos in which we reside. You are likely to find the material presented here to be nothing short of astounding. The ramifications for humanity are staggering as this book seriously challenges the basis for our cultural view of reality: materialism. After reading The Holographic Universe, you will understand why so many people are starting to say that a paradigm shift in our science and culture is at hand.

Science’s orthodoxy still resists abandoning materialism, but the scientific handwriting has been on the wall ever since 1905 when Einstein delivered his papers on Special Relativity and The Photovoltaic Effect. Subsequent research in Quantum Mechanics (sub-atomic physics) continues to usher us away from materialism and toward something far more interesting. History has shown us that radically new advances in worldviews almost never occur with the blessing of the Old Guard; it invariably takes fresh new minds to accept change of such magnitude. So it is with our society. As we move into the next millennium, concepts similar to those presented by Talbot will become mainstream and commonplace. As a result, our society will also be transformed.

The concepts presented in this book are a cornerstone of Quanta-Gaia -- the quest to better understand the cosmos and our role in it. After reading this book, you will either dismiss it as fantasy, like so many dismissed Einstein's papers in 1905, or you will be impressed by the magnitude of change which is at hand.

Top
#17365 - 12/31/08 06:14 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

your “bullshit where I see it” statement is completely hypocritical.

Not at all!

If I make a claim, to be sure I will back it up. If I cannot, I will withdraw it. You started this thread under the guise that what you had to say was objective and scientific, and when I pointed out that wasn't the case you continued to make the claim anyway. THAT is bullshit.

If you would have started out saying 'this is my opinion, based purely on my own personal interpretation of events as I perceive them', as is the case, this discussion we are having right now wouldn't be taking place. As I have mentioned, it is not your conclusions I take issue with but the intellectually dishonest way you are presenting them.

Also, we are not on the same level playing field, ontologically speaking. That I can not present evidence AGAINST your claims means just as little as not being able to present evidence against the flying spaghetti monster or YHVH. In matters of existence only positive evidence can weigh in. You are the one presenting an extraordinary claim, and we all know what extraordinary claims require , right?

Look, Tala, it's like this. All you have to do to shut me down on this forever is show your claims to be supported by something tangible.The results of actual research turning something up. Facts and evidence that lead to the conclusion you have reached. That's it. Easy right? What convinced YOU?

I will return to you the benefit of the doubt, that you indeed used some sort of reason or logic to arrive where you are at. Are you up to it?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#17374 - 12/31/08 07:57 PM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
"I didn't see anyone call Morgan a fool for believing in her ghost-cat? Why not? Because it isn't safe to bite her?"

Actually, I said I don't know if its my dead cat or a little deamon.

I really don't know. It happens occassionally, and has no rhyme or reason or pattern to it.

For all I know its an energy manifistation of my will directed at comforting myself.

Or

I just might be imaging it and completely insane.

M

Ps, as for biting me, well... I like that kinda stuff if its done right. ;\)
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#17412 - 01/01/09 03:57 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Morgan]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I know you didn't say it WAS a ghost cat but hell, if I'd go nasty mode, either ghost cat or energy manifestation would be a free ticket to say pretty annoying things.

We just can't back up certain claims at times without saying vague things we also can't back up. I could say god = alien technology and explain why, but I can never provide evidence for any of the explanations because if I could, the claim in itself would be verifiable to a degree.

Oh and Dan, if our baby looks like me, you're gonna be one proud mama.

D.

Top
#17414 - 01/01/09 05:09 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
daevid777 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 951
Loc: Hell's Pisshole, Texas
So, this is literally "all talk" and absolutely "no walk"? At least Morgan understood what I meant, "ghost cat" or "not". This is ridiculous in its own right, forget about "space aliens" or YHVH...

I guess then, go on with this circular argument, that isn't really an argument anymore - it's just moot.

I was just trying to add a little excitement... but carry on with tens of thousands more words... I'll just read and get a headache.
_________________________
Where we're going, we don't need roads.

Top
#17415 - 01/01/09 05:15 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: daevid777]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Is it so hard to understand that a forum is always ALL talk and that even when you bring experience to the game it is still ALL talk?

D.

Top
#17418 - 01/01/09 05:30 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Diavolo]
daevid777 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 951
Loc: Hell's Pisshole, Texas
At the very least, that response was to the point, prescisely, and short but sweeeet...

Otherwise, the proof is left to those that "believe" - I'm asking them to tell me of their actions, their experiences, what they've seen or done.

All I have so far is that there may or may not be a ghost-cat on the loose in New York, that happens to enjoy snuggling up in bed to outstanding women...

But oh, that may be just enough, just enough...
_________________________
Where we're going, we don't need roads.

Top
#17426 - 01/01/09 07:11 AM Re: Consciousness and Death [Re: Succubus666]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I didn't read it, just know some bits about it from here and there. I don't have the time to read all stuff so I have to make selections based upon credibility, at least what seems credible in my eyes.

If I'm not mistaking the whole idea of this books is based upon a violation in communication between particles, and holograms where suggested as a possible theory to make Einstein's theory work. I'm not sure if there are better explanations developed during the last decades, but even when not, going from a theory about a holographic nature of things and then adding spiritual and mystical elements into it seems a bit far stretched to me.

The "must read" intro is by the way a nice example of suggestive writing.

D.

Top
Page all of 13 12345>Last »


Moderator:  TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.193 seconds of which 0.006 seconds were spent on 200 queries. Zlib compression disabled.