Afterlife (Endings)
Dhw: (under "String theory fails") And best of all, the stunning conclusion: "Quantum gravity is the name that we give to the solution to this problem. We don't really know what quantum gravity is." Substitute "god" for quantum gravity, and we can all dance together in the dark.-DAVID: Exactly. God prefers to be concealed, and challenges us to find Him. That is where faith comes in. Real faith is best (strongest) if not created by miracles.-Of course to us blinkered humans, a concealed God would have exactly the same impact as a non-existent God, and the challenge to find him can only come from our imagination. Since he is unlikely to reveal himself in the next few years, his existence or non-existence has no relevance to me unless there is an afterlife. You have said you believe in this. I've been discussing the subject with Tony (balance_maintained), who has a very clear concept of what it entails: resurrection of the dead, a second chance to behave oneself as God thinks fit, and then eternal happiness with God, or eternal death. Since an afterlife is integral to your beliefs, I wonder if you yourself have any views as to what form and course it might take.
Afterlife
by David Turell 
, Wednesday, January 09, 2013, 00:27 (4119 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw: Since an afterlife is integral to your beliefs, I wonder if you yourself have any views as to what form and course it might take.-I think the views of an afterlife as proposed by the early religious folk has no basis in reality. There is no Hell. And much of the discussion seems to offer a reward for faith and for leading the good life. As I've commented before this is a childlike approach offered by parental religions to keep the members in a childlike submission, awaiting a reward.-I gain my ideas from the characteristics presented in NDE's. The gaining of information not otherwise available by communication with the dead supports that NDE's are real and instructional. The dead communicate by telepathy. Since consciousness survives transient death, I believe our consciousness in death joins with the universal consciousness, of which a subsection is human species consciousness as demostrated by Rupert Sheldrake's work. This is what is referred to as Heaven. Heaven exists at a quantum level, which is purposely hidden from us as God is, since He (the UI)is also at that level. -Perhaps you can explain to me why God's purposeful concealment puzzles you. It is an integral part of mature religion. It requires a strong faith to have faith in a concealed God. Tony understands.
Afterlife
DAVID: Perhaps you can explain to me why God's purposeful concealment puzzles you. It is an integral part of mature religion. It requires a strong faith to have faith in a concealed God. Tony understands.-You have answered your own question, though I wonder what makes a religion "mature". It requires a strong faith to believe in a power for whose existence there is no evidence other than inference, for whose presence there is no evidence whatsoever, and whose nature and intentions are totally unknown. It also requires a strong faith to believe in the ability of chance to assemble the ingredients for life and evolution. (Richard Dawkins understands.) I have no faith in either. I'm puzzled by your puzzlement at my puzzlement. -Thank you for your ideas about an afterlife. I presume that human consciousness joining "the universal consciousness" as a subsection still allows us to retain our individual identity, as experienced by all the NDE-ers. I'm not sure in what sense you're using the word "Heaven", which suggests some sort of paradise. Do you think all of us will enter this harmonious world? Or will mixed-up kids be reunited with their mixed-up parents in a continuation of life's miseries? Or do you visualize some kind of "cleansing" operation, through which everyone will live happily ever after? Or do you think there will be a selection policy based on what happens here? (Only a small proportion of resuscitated patients experience an NDE.) I ask such questions, as I did with Tony, because although NDEs and other such phenomena compel me to keep an open mind, no concept of an afterlife has ever made much sense to me. I am genuinely looking for answers.
Afterlife
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, January 10, 2013, 17:46 (4117 days ago) @ dhw
You have answered your own question, though I wonder what makes a religion "mature". It requires a strong faith to believe in a power for whose existence there is no evidence other than inference, for whose presence there is no evidence whatsoever, and whose nature and intentions are totally unknown. It also requires a strong faith to believe in the ability of chance to assemble the ingredients for life and evolution. (Richard Dawkins understands.) I have no faith in either. I'm puzzled by your puzzlement at my puzzlement. > -Personally, I think that what makes a belief system mature is a combination of things. First, the belief system must be holistic; it can not discount science, physics, religion, or any other field of study which presents concrete evidences, because to do so would be to deny part of existence as a whole, which by necessity means that your belief system is wrong. I.E. There is nothing in the natural world that is unnatural, and if you have belief in a creator, then you have to believe that all of these other things are part of its design. -Secondly, I think that, as David pointed out(and this may be a source of misunderstanding between he and I) basing a system of belief on an extrinsic reward for good behavior is childlike and ultimately noneffective. For myself, I do not have faith because of something I might get at the end of all things. I have faith despite what I might get at the end of all things. I have faith out of love and appreciation for all of the wonderful gifts in my life. If all I received for that faith were this one life, that would be sufficient, and every moment of it is a precious gift that I treasure. If I died this very instant, and all of my beliefs about the future never came to pass, I would still be 100% satisfied with my life. Every trial makes me appreciate the good things that much more. So the maturity of my own faith is that I do not require any rewards, because living according to my faith IS the reward. Further, just as I would show my appreciation to a friend that gave me a wonderful gift, I try to show my appreciation to God for giving me a gift far more precious than anything anyone else could ever give me. Since I have absolutely nothing of material value that I could give which he does not posess, I give the only things that are truly mine to give: my heart, mind, time, and attention. And, just like sending loving thoughts to a loved one is not enough to let them know you appreciate them, I try and demonstrate that love through my actions. - > Thank you for your ideas about an afterlife.... I am genuinely looking for answers.-As are we all..
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Afterlife
by David Turell , Friday, January 11, 2013, 05:26 (4117 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Secondly, I think that, as David pointed out(and this may be a source of misunderstanding between he and I) basing a system of belief on an extrinsic reward for good behavior is childlike and ultimately noneffective. For myself, I do not have faith because of something I might get at the end of all things. I have faith despite what I might get at the end of all things. I have faith out of love and appreciation for all of the wonderful gifts in my life. If all I received for that faith were this one life, that would be sufficient, and every moment of it is a precious gift that I treasure. If I died this very instant, and all of my beliefs about the future never came to pass, I would still be 100% satisfied with my life. Every trial makes me appreciate the good things that much more. So the maturity of my own faith is that I do not require any rewards, because living according to my faith IS the reward. Further, just as I would show my appreciation to a friend that gave me a wonderful gift, I try to show my appreciation to God for giving me a gift far more precious than anything anyone else could ever give me. Since I have absolutely nothing of material value that I could give which he does not posess, I give the only things that are truly mine to give: my heart, mind, time, and attention. And, just like sending loving thoughts to a loved one is not enough to let them know you appreciate them, I try and demonstrate that love through my actions. - Beautiful expression of what it is all about.
Afterlife
by BBella , Friday, January 11, 2013, 08:11 (4117 days ago) @ dhw
[dhw]...It [religion] requires a strong faith to believe in a power for whose existence there is no evidence other than inference, for whose presence there is no evidence whatsoever, and whose nature and intentions are totally unknown.-Most scientist these days would agree with your claim above, that there is no evidence of God. But can we really discount billions upon billions of people for thousands of years across every continent, even in the deepest remote regions with no communications with the outside world, the wisest, the young, the most scientific minds and the greatest and most humble philosophers, that have not only believed in a God or Great Spirit, etc., but many have claimed they could feel it's presence and even claim to know it's intentions or will? You would think that just the overwhelming number (altho diverse in expression) would be more than enough evidence and would at least carry some weight, even with science. This kind of circumstantial evidence would even hold sway in a court of law. But, as it stands, science is an "it's not true until science says it's true" kind of organization. But that doesn't mean that what these billions upon billions of people have experienced (each in their own way) across time and space is just a fabrication. Science cannot negate what people experience. And maybe God is a multi-dimentional aspect of consciousness that is experienced only in a collective or personal way at the consciousness level that science has yet to understand. -I think, possibly, belief in God/Spirit/UI, etc, or faith in an afterlife is like consciousness itself. It is not like matter that can be measured or calculated, but can only be understood by the unseen conscious self because it dwells in that realm. And no matter how many books and religions try to convey it or pin it down to facts, it still is only truly understood within the realm of consciousness. -For me, I believed as I was told to believe from religion/boos and people for many years. But then, when in my darkest time, that way failed me. Then I found my own way through my own consciousness. Maybe faith, belief, has been introduced to us in a collective way (through religion and books), but is ultimately meant to be found in our own personal way thru our own experiences. -It reminds me of the NDE's. As long as mankind can remember, these reports from billions of people claiming the same thing were poo-poohed by scientist until finally a few became intrigued (or was paid or had the NDE's themselves) and so began to study it and so now the door has been opened. Yet, it will not be pinned down or become fact because it dwells in the realm of the unseen, except by the consciousness itself. -So, again, can we really say the evidence isn't there? Maybe it is there...it's just not here. And "there" is where everyone experiences it.-> Thank you [David] for your ideas about an afterlife....I ask such questions, as I did with Tony, because although NDEs and other such phenomena compel me to keep an open mind, no concept of an afterlife has ever made much sense to me. I am genuinely looking for answers.-It is obvious that you are genuinely looking for answers, dhw, but at some point, if you haven't already realized it, the kind of answers to these kind of questions (God, the afterlife, etc) can only be truly answered or understood through personal experience. The proof is obviously not in the pudding (matter), so can only be understood through the conscious realm that is connected with these realms. How we all experience our consciousness (and our own personal realm of faith and belief) is very different, yet similar in that it can only be experienced thru the consciousness. We can read about or hear about what others experience in their belief, faith or consciousness, but when it comes right down to penning down the facts, they elude us with their diversity. Obviously billions upon billions of people thru time that have experienced a relationship with their God, or had NDE's, etc all cannot be delusional, can they?-In the meantime we discuss our findings, knowings and experiences here, and the diversity of belief could not be more symbolic in one place as we have here, even with so few. -Here is a question I know I've asked you before about how you would like an afterlife to be, but this time from a different angle, I would like to ask you what kind of an afterlife (saying there is one) would make sense to you? -Sorry for the ramblings from one subject to another...I've had all day to myself today and tea too late.
Afterlife
by David Turell , Friday, January 11, 2013, 15:05 (4116 days ago) @ BBella
> bbella: Sorry for the ramblings from one subject to another...I've had all day to myself today and tea too late.-I find your ramblings wonderfully expressed and filled with clear thought. Consciousness is a key to everything as are the mysteries of the quantum. I have not had a God-experiencing event, but I 'know' I am right by my having a deep emotional response when I dwell on it. Perhaps that is what you are describing.
Afterlife
dhw...It [religion] requires a strong faith to believe in a power for whose existence there is no evidence other than inference, for whose presence there is no evidence whatsoever, and whose nature and intentions are totally unknown.-BBELLA: Most scientist these days would agree with your claim above, that there is no evidence of God. But can we really discount billions upon billions of people for thousands of years across every continent, even in the deepest remote regions with no communications with the outside world, the wisest, the young, the most scientific minds and the greatest and most humble philosophers, that have not only believed in a God or Great Spirit, etc., but many have claimed they could feel it's presence and even claim to know it's intentions or will? You would think that just the overwhelming number (altho diverse in expression) would be more than enough evidence and would at least carry some weight, even with science. I should really quote all of your post (totally to the point, and not rambling at all!), but this will suffice to give the flavour of your argument. Much of what you've said is what I would say to an atheist. The problem for me is that I have never found an argument which was not precisely balanced by a counter argument. "Diverse in expression" is a typical example. My theist self argues that for all the differences in expression, what religions have in common is the idea (amounting to a kind of universal truth) that there is some superpower out there which created us and maybe is even interested in us. But my atheist self points out that humans, because of their extreme awareness, need explanations for things they do not understand, and need reassurance in a world full of unknown dangers, suffering, and the knowledge that eventually they will die. The explanations are as varied as the societies that provide them, but as science demolishes the myths and false explanations, our more "sophisticated" religions have to change, and ultimately to seek refuge in whatever remains unexplained. This suggests anything but a universal truth. However, my personal non-belief is not caused by faith in science. I don't believe science can ever come up with the answers to our basic questions. Nor is it caused by scepticism concerning NDEs and other so-called "paranormal" (I don't like the expression) experiences. I have a completely open mind on these, have moments of oneness with the world (the living world rather than the universe), and am as baffled by consciousness and imagination as everyone else should be. So my mind is not closed to the possibility of a UI of some kind. But...and of course the agnostic has to come up with a "but"...the theory that all these mysteries can be solved by an even greater mystery ... a form of eternally existing intelligence that does not depend on materials, is as endless as this universe and perhaps others too, is mindful of tiny specks like us ... is far, far beyond the reach of my intellect and imagination, and I have no intuition that tells me it must be there, let alone interested in us. At least Apollo, Freyr, Helios, Mithras, Surya and Tonatiuh all have the quality of being visible and of directly giving us life (they are sun gods). If I told you that the sun was a conscious being, would you believe me? If not, why not? (Billions of people throughout history HAVE believed it.)-You wrote: [...] "if you haven't already realized it, the kind of answers to these kind of questions (God, the afterlife, etc) can only be truly answered or understood through personal experience." I think that is right. And we always come back to subjectivity ... we are for the most part trapped within ourselves, with hopelessly limited vision and understanding. I'm afraid this applies equally to theist, atheist and agnostic, and the billions of people who believe are as subjective as those who don't. The fact that times have changed, and the existence of some kind of deity is no longer taken for granted, is no proof either way. Perhaps people used to be more gullible, or perhaps they were closer to Nature and to the truth. Who knows? Whether believers are "delusional" or not is a very blunt way of approaching the subject (and forms part of the conclusion to my "brief guide"), and I would hate to associate myself with Dawkins' use of the term, but in all honesty I can only answer: maybe, maybe not! BBella: I would like to ask you what kind of an afterlife (saying there is one) would make sense to you?-I'm afraid it's the same problem as what kind I would like! It would only make sense if I kept my identity and was able to meet up with people I knew (preferably those I loved!) ... but (the key question) what would an eternal self living eternally with other eternal selves do throughout eternity? If you lose yourself, you might as well be dead. And the option you once offered of choosing to return to earthly life would only make sense if I knew I was myself (some people do claim to remember their previous lives, but I certainly don't). Does a cycle of being me and then not knowing I am me make sense? Eternal death makes sense, but of course that does not constitute an afterlife!
Afterlife
by David Turell , Saturday, January 12, 2013, 15:01 (4115 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: So my mind is not closed to the possibility of a UI of some kind. But...and of course the agnostic has to come up with a "but"...the theory that all these mysteries can be solved by an even greater mystery ... a form of eternally existing intelligence that does not depend on materials, is as endless as this universe and perhaps others too, is mindful of tiny specks like us ... is far, far beyond the reach of my intellect and imagination, and I have no intuition that tells me it must be there, let alone interested in us. -I've cherry-picked your observations to point out the gap in your thinking. It doesn't require 'intuition' to realize tht there is something eternal. Nothing comes from nothing, so there has always been something. Back to the First Cause argument, recognized since the ancient Greeks. Life requires complicated codes based on an enormous amount of information. Only intellect or mind can create that information. -That is the creative nubbin of my thinking. I can't imagine or have any intuition about a UI. I only know it HAS to exist. It is required to fit the logical conclusion that life's underlying information had to come from some thought process. Just because you can't imagine it, doesn't mean it is not there. Your imagination can conjure up all sorts of things that are not there and never will be: flying pink elephants, humans with wings. Religions like the idea of angels with wings. To what logical purpose? -So let's leave out our ability to imagine the UI, and agree it is a logical endpoint to our study of the cause of the real world. The final mystery is meant to be, behind the curtain of quantum uncertainty. Never to be completely understood, but as a challenge from the great UI mind to ours to keep trying. -My whole concept has a nice 'fit' within itself. At the top is the UI that we realy cannot 'know' and underlying all of it is the quicksand of quantum confusion. And some of us can develop 'faith' out of this monstrous muddle. Tony has, I have, can you?
Afterlife
dhw: So my mind is not closed to the possibility of a UI of some kind. But...and of course the agnostic has to come up with a "but"...the theory that all these mysteries can be solved by an even greater mystery ... a form of eternally existing intelligence that does not depend on materials, is as endless as this universe and perhaps others too, is mindful of tiny specks like us ... is far, far beyond the reach of my intellect and imagination, and I have no intuition that tells me it must be there, let alone interested in us. -DAVID: I've cherry-picked your observations to point out the gap in your thinking. It doesn't require 'intuition' to realize that there is something eternal. -Cherry-picking is OK, but you shouldn't chuck out two thirds of the cherries you've picked! I have long ago accepted that there is something eternal. But not that it is an "intelligence", let alone one that is mindful of us! DAVID: Nothing comes from nothing, so there has always been something. Back to the First Cause argument, recognized since the ancient Greeks. We have agreed that the first cause is energy. Recap: first cause energy may be self-aware, "intelligent" without self-awareness (a theory I offered under "Panpsychism"), or completely devoid of intelligence (one form of atheism).-DAVID: Life requires complicated codes based on an enormous amount of information. Only intellect or mind can create that information.-Complete agreement with your first sentence. I would rephrase the second: It seems almost inconceivable that this information could have been created by anything other than intellect or mind. I would then continue: ...just as it seems almost inconceivable that eternal and infinite energy can always have had or may have spontaneously engendered its own intellect or mind. DAVID: That is the creative nubbin of my thinking. I can't imagine or have any intuition about a UI. But many people do. BBella, in my view quite rightly, attributes many people's faith to personal experience, and that I think includes an intuitive connection to a higher power. DAVID: I only know it HAS to exist. It is required to fit the logical conclusion that life's underlying information had to come from some thought process. -May I quote you: "It requires a strong faith to have faith in a concealed God." There is more to your belief than logic.-DAVID: Just because you can't imagine it, doesn't mean it is not there. -Agreed. But if neither intellect nor imagination nor intuition can provide grounds for faith, what can?-DAVID: So let's leave out our ability to imagine the UI, and agree it is a logical endpoint to our study of the cause of the real world. The final mystery is meant to be, behind the curtain of quantum uncertainty. Never to be completely understood, but as a challenge from the great UI mind to ours to keep trying. My whole concept has a nice 'fit' within itself. At the top is the UI that we really cannot 'know' and underlying all of it is the quicksand of quantum confusion. And some of us can develop 'faith' out of this monstrous muddle. Tony has, I have, can you?-I love it! "Quantum confusion" and "monstrous muddle", and you invite me to step behind the "curtain of quantum uncertainty" into the "quicksand". Well, I might do if you spread a chocolate carpet of evidence over the quicksand!-DAVID (under "How epigenetics works"): You will never have a black and white conclusion. There is none, and never will be. I think you are on your picket fence forever.-If, as you believe, there is an afterlife, I would expect to learn more. If there is no afterlife, it won't matter. Meanwhile, I love this life, get a great deal of pleasure, insight and information from our discussions on the subject, and will almost certainly remain on my picket fence unless someone can come up with a more convincing argument than: "It is concealed. It must be accepted on faith."
Afterlife
by David Turell , Monday, January 14, 2013, 01:30 (4114 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: We have agreed that the first cause is energy. Recap: first cause energy may be self-aware, "intelligent" without self-awareness (a theory I offered under "Panpsychism"), or completely devoid of intelligence (one form of atheism).-The first cause cannot simply throw out an unplanned universe, without design. Design requires a thinking mind to analyze the plan. Look at Tony's current response to you. If there is a goal there is planning to reach that goal in the design of the plan. That planning mind is introspective; analysis requires self-awareness. > > DAVID: Life requires complicated codes based on an enormous amount of information. Only intellect or mind can create that information. > > dhw:Complete agreement with your first sentence. I would rephrase the second: It seems almost inconceivable that this information could have been created by anything other than intellect or mind. I would then continue: ...just as it seems almost inconceivable that eternal and infinite energy can always have had or may have spontaneously engendered its own intellect or mind. -Fine. but what other scenario do you propose. How did the intellect appear? We don't know but it is an obvious conclusion that it must have always been there, eternally. > > dhw: BBella, in my view quite rightly, attributes many people's faith to personal experience, and that I think includes an intuitive connection to a higher power.-I feel I have arrived at the same intuitive conclusion. > > DAVID: I only know it HAS to exist. It is required to fit the logical conclusion that life's underlying information had to come from some thought process. > > dhw: May I quote you: "It requires a strong faith to have faith in a concealed God." There is more to your belief than logic.-But my faith comes from my logic that there can be no other answer.- > > DAVID: Just because you can't imagine it, doesn't mean it is not there. > > dhw: Agreed. But if neither intellect nor imagination nor intuition can provide grounds for faith, what can?-Simple, the logic I have presented. It is the only answer that fits.There is no other approach except your willingness to insist only on absolute proof. Unfortunately for you there will never be such a proof. I'll meet you in the afterlife and tell you I told you so.
Afterlife
by BBella , Monday, January 14, 2013, 06:51 (4114 days ago) @ dhw
my atheist self points out that humans, because of their extreme awareness, need explanations for things they do not understand, and need reassurance in a world full of unknown dangers, suffering, and the knowledge that eventually they will die. -I agree, there are many that do have (and have had) these ideas and needs. I was one of those people. ->as science demolishes the myths and false explanations, our more "sophisticated" religions have to change, and ultimately to seek refuge in whatever remains unexplained.-A lot of mainstream religions these days are changing into more esoteric religions that, I think, are more like self-help groups than religions (which I have no problem with). Maybe it is for this very reason you state - science. >"but"...the theory that all these mysteries can be solved by an even greater mystery ... a form of eternally existing intelligence...is mindful of tiny specks like us ... is far, far beyond the reach of my intellect and imagination, and I have no intuition that tells me it must be there, let alone interested in us. -Because of my own personal experiences I do believe there is something more than meets the eye. I don't know what. But because of others experiences I believe that the possibility weighs more heavily on the side of another dimension/side ( to the unseen) of life as we know it. I have, and millions of people have as well, experienced what they feel could only be a caring or mindful eye watching over them at a certain or crucial time in their life. This is why I say, faith and belief, for the most part, are more about experience than knowing. ->If I told you that the sun was a conscious being, would you believe me? If not, why not? (Billions of people throughout history HAVE believed it.)-Odd you should ask. Once, when I smoked marijuana, I was guided (thru a wormhole I would call them) to understand that the sun was living being. So, I wouldn't say I believe it but I wouldn't discount it either. Nothing is impossible. -> You wrote: [...] "if you haven't already realized it, the kind of answers to these kind of questions (God, the afterlife, etc) can only be truly answered or understood through personal experience." I think that is right. And we always come back to subjectivity ... we are for the most part trapped within ourselves, with hopelessly limited vision and understanding. -Trapped within a subjective mind (and body) with hopelessly limited vision and understanding, is obviously the way it is meant to be as that is the way it is, for us all. And many (I was one), have felt this limitation as a curse or maybe better said, as a deficiency for the natural mind as if something is hidden that should be known. For me, my own personal limitations drove me to a loneliness (even surrounded by a loving family) that so many others have been driven to as well, because of these very limitations. And desperate to step beyond the pale of these limitations (out of the trap) just to know that one more piece to the puzzle, to ease the feeling of being trapped - coincidentally (or not) - that one piece of the puzzle appears before us, and the mind finds a way. It is at this breaking point, as Keanu Reeves said in the movie remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still, "Only at the precipice do we evolve." This is what I mean by our beliefs as well as our faith, for many of us, isn't determined by what we know or see or have been taught. It's that which was unknown and unseen before but at just the right moment appears and guides our way. Whatever it is that happens in the mind when pushed to the edge, whatever it is you see over the edge, determines how you will think thereafter. And, of course, no one cares then about a scientific explanation. -> BBella: I would like to ask you what kind of an afterlife (saying there is one) would make sense to you? > > I'm afraid it's the same problem as what kind I would like! It would only make sense if I kept my identity and was able to meet up with people I knew (preferably those I loved!) ... but (the key question) what would an eternal self living eternally with other eternal selves do throughout eternity? If you lose yourself, you might as well be dead. And the option you once offered of choosing to return to earthly life would only make sense if I knew I was myself (some people do claim to remember their previous lives, but I certainly don't). Does a cycle of being me and then not knowing I am me make sense? Eternal death makes sense, but of course that does not constitute an afterlife!-If there is an afterlife, and if, as I would like it, and what makes sense to me, we do keep our main identity throughout (only leaving it behind temporarily as we choose to visit different places/dimensions/times) and we do meet up with loved ones ( as NDE'rs have said they have experienced) in our main "down" times, I would think by now, since eternity is a long darn time, that many places and times and things to do and experience would have been created and are still being created. Even time itself may be something only experienced on places like Earth. Eternal death makes absolutely no sense to me now, but if it is so, I have no problem with it being so, especially after I am gone.
Afterlife
BBELLA: Because of my own experiences I do believe that there is something more than meets the eye. I don't know what.-To my mind, there is a vast amount more than meets the eye, since there is simply no accounting for much of what is most precious to us. I don't understand the nature of consciousness, love, music, imagination, memory, beauty etc., but they are absolutely real to me. Whether they are the mysterious products of chemicals inside me, or of some even more mysterious form of energy that is independent of my body, I simply do not know. You write that "faith and belief, for the most part, are more about experience than knowing." I think you're right. Very few people can acquire them solely through the intellect.-BBELLA: Once, when I smoked marijuana, I was guided (thru a wormhole I would call them) to understand that the sun was [a] living being. [...] So, I wouldn't say I believe it but I wouldn't discount it either. Nothing is impossible.-Spoken like a true agnostic! According to one variation of panpsychism (panexperientialism, to be precise!), there is a degree of "phenomenal consciousness" in all matter, though it doesn't extend to cognition or self-awareness. The sun regulates its activities (just as various living cells regulate theirs) in such a way that we are able to live and stay alive. David would cite this as an example of God's design, but perhaps it's an example of cell cooperation on a cosmic scale, since our existence depends on so many other factors within the universe. Maybe David's universal intelligence is not ONE intelligence but billions of separate material "cells" sharing their separate intelligence and getting together to form our life-sustaining world. This would be quite a nice stepping stone between theism and atheism. I don't believe it, but "nothing is impossible" (um...within the boundaries of common sense, as defined by each individual!) -BBELLA: Whatever it is that happens to the mind when pushed to the edge [...] determines how you will think thereafter. And, of course, no one cares then about a scientific explanation.-I don't think people need to be pushed to the edge to have faith, or even to be converted. The path will vary from person to person, but my precious list above (consciousness, love etc.) is real to me without a scientific explanation, and I very much doubt if there ever will be one. I think most of us on this forum recognize that science has its limitations, and that it is not the only access we have to the reality of things (assuming things have any reality).-In a meaningful afterlife, you think we would keep our main identity, meet up with our loved ones, and there would be lots of new places to see and things to do. But for eternity? Life without end? I would even go so far as to say that without endings, nothing would be of any value. Is there any sight, any place, any activity (apart from cricket of course), any food (apart from chocolate, of course), any drink, any music, any TV programme, anything at all including your own company that you can imagine living with without end, for ever and ever and ever. You say eternal death makes no sense to you now, but much as I hate the idea of dying at the moment ... because I'm enjoying my life ... it is eternal life that makes no sense to me. So only God knows how God must feel!
Afterlife
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 15, 2013, 17:22 (4112 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:You say eternal death makes no sense to you now, but much as I hate the idea of dying at the moment ... because I'm enjoying my life ... it is eternal life that makes no sense to me. So only God knows how God must feel!-If I may drop in to say: you are right. It is life's trials and challenges that make it interesting. It is NDE's that make me feel there is an afterlife, and I assume the souls spend it philosophizing with each other and watching what goes on among the living. God probably created us out of boredom. Giving us free will only made the show better by adding uncertainty.
Afterlife
by BBella , Wednesday, January 16, 2013, 07:00 (4112 days ago) @ dhw
BBELLA: Once, when I smoked marijuana, I was guided (thru a wormhole I would call them) to understand that the sun was [a] living being. [...] So, I wouldn't say I believe it but I wouldn't discount it either. Nothing is impossible. > > Spoken like a true agnostic! According to one variation of panpsychism (panexperientialism, to be precise!), there is a degree of "phenomenal consciousness" in all matter, though it doesn't extend to cognition or self-awareness. The sun regulates its activities (just as various living cells regulate theirs) in such a way that we are able to live and stay alive. David would cite this as an example of God's design, but perhaps it's an example of cell cooperation on a cosmic scale, since our existence depends on so many other factors within the universe. Maybe David's universal intelligence is not ONE intelligence but billions of separate material "cells" sharing their separate intelligence and getting together to form our life-sustaining world. This would be quite a nice stepping stone between theism and atheism. I don't believe it, but "nothing is impossible" (um...within the boundaries of common sense, as defined by each individual!)-Now this I do believe! And the reason for that is it's just what I experienced and tried to express in poems and art during my "frozen in time" years. Cellular communication at a universal level. I will be looking further into panpsychism and panexperientialism when I get time. [On an aside - my reason for trying marijuana was to try and ease the pain during my illness - and it did work, but I couldn't handle the mental effects. I also admit to trying it many years before in my younger years, but with little if any effect - not so with the kind I was smoking during my illness - that stuff kicked a**] > > BBELLA: Whatever it is that happens to the mind when pushed to the edge [...] determines how you will think thereafter. And, of course, no one cares then about a scientific explanation. > > I don't think people need to be pushed to the edge to have faith, or even to be converted. -I agree, they don't, but - I was speaking more to those who, regardless of what they believed going into an experience, coming out on the other side of certain kinds of experiences they have faith or belief in something completely incomprehensible to them before. Like NDE's, extreme illnesses, desperate situations, etc. So many people have found themselves pushed to the edge, and some even over the edge, experiencing something they could never have imagined on this side of the experience. It is these kind of experiences that I am speaking about that tells me there are more spaces/places to "visit" in the universe than only places we see. ->I think most of us on this forum recognize that science has its limitations, and that it is not the only access we have to the reality of things (assuming things have any reality).-Exactly my point. And you described your point in such a way to lead into my point: Not only does science have it's limitations, we each have that same limitation when it comes to having access to each others reality (at a point). There is one common reality we do all share with each other and that we all have access to together. But then there is the other reality that even tho we all share, in the sense that we all have one, but no one has access to the others - and that is within the reality of consciousness. Yet, even tho we cannot access each others conscious reality, each persons reality is just as real when it comes to it's "effect" on the universal consciousness thru - cellular communication. Continued...
Afterlife
by BBella , Wednesday, January 16, 2013, 07:10 (4112 days ago) @ dhw
In a meaningful afterlife, you think we would keep our main identity, meet up with our loved ones, and there would be lots of new places to see and things to do. But for eternity? Life without end? -It would actually be eternal life with many endings, if you [visit] spend lives in places that has endings, like earth. Going back to the base/heaven/the inbetween/etc, would be a joyous occasion each time, especially finding out, again, life is eternal and you really didn't just die (as many NDE'rs explain it). ->I would even go so far as to say that without endings, nothing would be of any value. Is there any sight, any place, any activity (apart from cricket of course), any food (apart from chocolate, of course), any drink, any music, any TV programme, anything at all including your own company that you can imagine living with without end, for ever and ever and ever. -No, there is nothing I can imagine having any value eternally (said with a mortal mind). But that is the very reason why I can imagine endless places created to visit with just as much variety, and if I like, as many endings as I would be willing to experience just to experience something new, as if I had never experienced it before. And I could experience the joy of the inbetween eternal time at the end of every ending (I think that's a bonus!). Of course, being here on Earth our minds would be limited in understanding of these kinds of things...that only makes sense because that is the very limitations written in the contract before we come here each time...duh! ->You say eternal death makes no sense to you now, but much as I hate the idea of dying at the moment ... because I'm enjoying my life ... it is eternal life that makes no sense to me. -I am thankful I am able to imagine an eternal life in just the way I have imagined it, as it is very comforting for me. I like the thought of going endless places and experiencing them all for the first time and being someone different every time (or sometimes being just who I am in the inbetween). But at the end of the day (life) I come home to the reality of the inbetween time, my main reality, where I can remember all the other realities I've visited and maybe gain something new from each that I didn't have before. I've dreamed of this main reality and the remembrance of my other realities which is one reason it's so easy for me to imagine. -But, in the end of it all, what really matters is what brings me comfort while I am still here. And it is the same for you and for all of us.->> In a meaningful afterlife, you think we would keep our main identity, meet up with our loved ones, and there would be lots of new places to see and things to do. But for eternity? Life without end? -It would actually be eternal life with many endings, if you [visit] spend lives in places that has endings, like earth. Going back to the base/heaven/the inbetween/etc, would be a joyous occasion each time, especially finding out, again, life is eternal and you really didn't just die (as many NDE'rs explain it). ->I would even go so far as to say that without endings, nothing would be of any value. Is there any sight, any place, any activity (apart from cricket of course), any food (apart from chocolate, of course), any drink, any music, any TV programme, anything at all including your own company that you can imagine living with without end, for ever and ever and ever. -No, there is nothing I can imagine having any value eternally (said with a mortal mind). But that is the very reason why I can imagine endless places created to visit with just as much variety, and if I like, as many endings as I would be willing to experience just to experience something new, as if I had never experienced it before. And I could experience the joy of the inbetween eternal time at the end of every ending (I think that's a bonus!). Of course, being here on Earth our minds would be limited in understanding of these kinds of things...that only makes sense because that is the very limitations written in the contract before we come here each time...duh! ->You say eternal death makes no sense to you now, but much as I hate the idea of dying at the moment ... because I'm enjoying my life ... it is eternal life that makes no sense to me.-I am thankful I am able to imagine an eternal life in just the way I have imagined it, as it is very comforting for me. I like the thought of going endless places and experiencing them all for the first time and being someone different every time (or sometimes being just who I am in the inbetween). But at the end of the day (life) I come home to the reality of the inbetween time, my main reality, where I can remember all the other realities I've visited and maybe gain something new from each that I didn't have before. I've dreamed of this main reality and the remembrance of my other realities which is one reason it's so easy for me to imagine. -But, in the end of it all, what really matters is what brings me comfort while I am still here. And it is the same for you and for all of us.->So only God knows how God must feel!-"If" panpsychism is what God is - billions of separate material "cells" sharing their separate intelligence and getting together to form our life-sustaining world - then at some cellular level, we all know how God feels. -Sorry, didn't have time to edit..so hope it's not too confusing or rambling.
Afterlife
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, January 16, 2013, 07:36 (4112 days ago) @ BBella
In a meaningful afterlife, you think we would keep our main identity, meet up with our loved ones, and there would be lots of new places to see and things to do. But for eternity? Life without end? > > It would actually be eternal life with many endings, if you [visit] spend lives in places that has endings, like earth. Going back to the base/heaven/the inbetween/etc, would be a joyous occasion each time, especially finding out, again, life is eternal and you really didn't just die (as many NDE'rs explain it). > > >I would even go so far as to say that without endings, nothing would be of any value. Is there any sight, any place, any activity (apart from cricket of course), any food (apart from chocolate, of course), any drink, any music, any TV programme, anything at all including your own company that you can imagine living with without end, for ever and ever and ever. > > No, there is nothing I can imagine having any value eternally (said with a mortal mind). But that is the very reason why I can imagine endless places created to visit with just as much variety, and if I like, as many endings as I would be willing to experience just to experience something new, as if I had never experienced it before. And I could experience the joy of the inbetween eternal time at the end of every ending (I think that's a bonus!). Of course, being here on Earth our minds would be limited in understanding of these kinds of things...that only makes sense because that is the very limitations written in the contract before we come here each time...duh! > --I often wondered why the need to create billions and billions of galaxies and stars, and only put life on one. What you two have discussed here was actually part of my own conclusion to that. Speaking from my perspective, if the original order was to go forth and fill the earth, subduing it, then that gives us a sort of mission, if you will: subduing nature(in the husbandry sense of taming and caring for it). With such a vast array of worlds, it would stand to reason that the same mission could been extended to include the universe, and perhaps would have, had it not been interrupted. -This might also be the solution to one of DHW's quandaries regarding the population of the planet after the resurrection. But then, it is only speculation. There is not any kind of evidence to support that other than the sheer vastness of creation. God is a purposeful entity, I can not envision Him creating such vastness for no reason, not when absolutely every particle that we have ever encountered is chocked full of purpose and direction. Nothing exists just to exist, at least not that I have ever heard tale of. Generally, it is a case of us not understanding the reason at the time.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Afterlife
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 16, 2013, 14:47 (4111 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: God is a purposeful entity, I can not envision Him creating such vastness for no reason, not when absolutely every particle that we have ever encountered is chocked full of purpose and direction. Nothing exists just to exist, at least not that I have ever heard tale of. Generally, it is a case of us not understanding the reason at the time.-I must agree with you. The orderliness of the particle zoo, the precise laws that control the universe speak to a purposeful intelligence at the source. We have found a great number of the 'reasons' in our designer universe fine-tuned for life, even if we have the quantum quandry.
Afterlife
by BBella , Monday, January 21, 2013, 05:24 (4107 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
bbella: there is nothing I can imagine having any value eternally (said with a mortal mind). But that is the very reason why I can imagine endless places created to visit with just as much variety, >Tony: I often wondered why the need to create billions and billions of galaxies and stars, and only put life on one. What you two have discussed here was actually part of my own conclusion to that. Speaking from my perspective, if the original order was to go forth and fill the earth, subduing it, then that gives us a sort of mission...With such a vast array of worlds, it would stand to reason that the same mission could been extended to include the universe, and perhaps would have, had it not been interrupted....This might also be the solution to one of DHW's quandaries regarding the population of the planet after the resurrection. But then, it is only speculation. There is not any kind of evidence to support that other than the sheer vastness of creation. God is a purposeful entity, I can not envision Him creating such vastness for no reason, not when absolutely every particle that we have ever encountered is chocked full of purpose and direction. Nothing exists just to exist, at least not that I have ever heard tale of. Generally, it is a case of us not understanding the reason at the time.-Tony, the last church I attended (a 13 year stint) taught that the whole of creation is waiting for the first fruits, or "sons of glory" that are being birthed from the earth (thru regeneration), to become rulers over the material creation. They taught, there are rulers over the unseen/immaterial creation and will be rulers over the seen/material creation, but have yet to be manifested from the material world - which is suppose to begin at Christ's return.
Afterlife
by David Turell , Monday, January 21, 2013, 05:34 (4107 days ago) @ BBella
Tony: There is not any kind of evidence to support that other than the sheer vastness of creation. God is a purposeful entity, I can not envision Him creating such vastness for no reason, not when absolutely every particle that we have ever encountered is chocked full of purpose and direction. Nothing exists just to exist, at least not that I have ever heard tale of. Generally, it is a case of us not understanding the reason at the time.-I think Tony's description of why thre is a God of purpose is right on. > > b bella: Tony, the last church I attended (a 13 year stint) taught that the whole of creation is waiting for the first fruits, or "sons of glory" that are being birthed from the earth (thru regeneration), to become rulers over the material creation. They taught, there are rulers over the unseen/immaterial creation and will be rulers over the seen/material creation, but have yet to be manifested from the material world - which is suppose to begin at Christ's return.-I think that church, if you don't mind my intrusion, has invented a lot of fanciful junk. It is much more reasonable to accept the idea that God wanted to create us, alone. Genesis says we have dominion over the Earth. We are life's caretakers. There is nothing else, in my opinion.
Afterlife
BBella and I are discussing possible afterlives.-BBELLA; It would actually be eternal life with many endings, if you (visit) spend lives in places that have endings, like earth. Going back to the base/heaven/the inbetween/etc. would be a joyous occasion each time, especially finding out, again, life is eternal and you really didn't die (as many NDE'rs explain it). -The bodies of NDE'rs are technically dead, and although they can perceive things in our world (as in OBEs) they can obviously experience a different world too, so I guess this fits in nicely with your vision. I wonder, though, if the places you visit and the people you meet will all be pleasurable. If lovely folk like you live on with your identities intact, so will nasty folk like Hitler, and so will his millions of victims. Trust dhw to cast a dark shadow! But the thought is serious. Tony thinks we are all going to be PHYSICALLY resurrected. I shan't reopen the painful discussion he and I have just had, but for me, the mystery of consciousness and NDEs constitutes an immensely important element of this whole discussion. If we really aren't simply the sum of our materials, consciousness has to be a form of energy that is independent of the brain (this unknown form of intelligent energy is precisely how David sees his god). An afterlife only seems feasible to me in this form. But if one person's consciousness is independent, then so is everybody else's. And if one person keeps his identity, then so does everybody else. And if it's possible to visit places, commune with people, perceive, and feel emotions (as NDE'rs appear to do), then all options remain open, good and bad: Mahler's 2nd and the screams of the tormented.-BBELLA: But in the end of it all, what really matters is what brings me comfort while I am still here. And it is the same for you and for all of us.-Sadly, there are many folk who find no comfort, but most of us on this website seem to have found our own very different ways of coping with the great uncertainties of this world. For me, most of the future possibilities are both comforting and even exciting. It's only some of the religious fist-shaking that puts me off.
Afterlife
by David Turell , Friday, January 18, 2013, 19:06 (4109 days ago) @ dhw
BBELLA: But in the end of it all, what really matters is what brings me comfort while I am still here. And it is the same for you and for all of us. > > dhw:Sadly, there are many folk who find no comfort, but most of us on this website seem to have found our own very different ways of coping with the great uncertainties of this world. For me, most of the future possibilities are both comforting and even exciting. It's only some of the religious fist-shaking that puts me off.-We have been given the gift of life. We are supposed to take advantage of it and make the most of it, but not at the expense of others. At this website we see the proper approach.
Afterlife
by BBella , Monday, January 21, 2013, 04:59 (4107 days ago) @ dhw
BBella and I are discussing possible afterlives. > > BBELLA; It would actually be eternal life with many endings, if you (visit) spend lives in places that have endings, like earth. Going back to the base/heaven/the inbetween/etc. would be a joyous occasion each time, especially finding out, again, life is eternal and you really didn't die (as many NDE'rs explain it). > > The bodies of NDE'rs are technically dead, and although they can perceive things in our world (as in OBEs) they can obviously experience a different world too, so I guess this fits in nicely with your vision. I wonder, though, if the places you visit and the people you meet will all be pleasurable.-I would think that when souls (using soul for the lack of any other word) are in the IBT (in-between time) everyone and every thing would be a pleasurable experience. But when a soul visits (agrees to be born in) a place like Earth (maybe earth is the only place like this) you have no memory of before you got here, and life is an emotional roller coaster of experiences that you can rarely understand, and you have no memory of the IBT because you specifically came here to forget and to experience these emotions of not knowing. So, of course here, on Earth, we would meet and hear about plenty of unhappy souls that won't be as pleasurable. So why come here at all? It could be to break the boredom spell after a millenia or so, or come to support another souls experience here. Or to experience being an important mover or shaker here on earth, or just to experience an emotion we have yet to experience. Being here, and not in the IBT, I can't say. ->If lovely folk like you live on with your identities intact, so will nasty folk like Hitler, and so will his millions of victims.-In my thinking, of how I want the IBT to be, when a soul gets back to the IBT (after death), they cease living the life they lived on Earth, in the sense, they remember who they truly are (the remember the many lives they lived before, the eons of knowledge they had before they came to the land of forgetfulness of their recent past life, etc). So the influences that would have compelled Hitler to become who he was on earth (certainly a mover and shaker) no longer applies to his IBT life. Imagine playing a video game where you have created a whole life where you are the king and you've killed a lot of people, but when you shut it off, you live a life nothing like that life and know so much more than the person you play in the video. Let's say that in years to come they create something like the holodeck on star wars...it would be something like that. In other words, when Hitler gets to the IBT he will be using all of his brain and memory (not just 10 percent). ->If we really aren't simply the sum of our materials, consciousness has to be a form of energy that is independent of the brain (this unknown form of intelligent energy is precisely how David sees his god). An afterlife only seems feasible to me in this form. But if one person's consciousness is independent, then so is everybody else's. And if one person keeps his identity, then so does everybody else. -In many of the NDE's they first feel complete trust and a knowing that everything is good, warm and wonderful and they have no worries, and many say they do not want to return. Usually they meet someone they either know from their life but have passed, or someone kin to them that has passed they may or may have not known, and these people usually tell them they are not ready to come back yet and they have to go back...but, again, the NDE'er always say they don't want go back to their lives but something compels them to or they just get sucked back into their body. This tells me that where the person goes feels wonderful and they trust it and have complete peace and have kept their identities but not enough to want to return to their loved ones, since the place they have entered is much more compelling (which seems should be a great sign about this place we will all be heading to at some point). But this "place" must be like the train station or pearly gates and not the actual welcome home ceremony, because it's rarely ever more than this one person meet and greet. So going by these experiences, it appears the person keeps their identity because they never really let go of their physical/material self which is attached to their physical identity. I can imagine, when it is a complete death, that after a bit of deprogramming from their past identity, they begin to remember their full IBT identity and integrate their experiences here into their full memory. I'm sure there probably would be a period of adjustment. -continued...
Afterlife
BBELLA: In my thinking, of how I want the IBT to be, when a soul gets back to the IBT (after death), they cease living the life they lived on Earth, in the sense, they remember who they truly are (the remember the many lives they lived before, the eons of knowledge they had before they came to the land of forgetfulness of their recent past life, etc). So the influences that would have compelled Hitler to become who he was on earth (certainly a mover and shaker) no longer applies to his IBT life. Imagine playing a video game where you have created a whole life where you are the king and you've killed a lot of people, but when you shut it off, you live a life nothing like that life and know so much more than the person you play in the video. Let's say that in years to come they create something like the holodeck on star wars...it would be something like that. In other words, when Hitler gets to the IBT he will be using all of his brain and memory (not just 10 percent).-It's difficult to pick out a section from your post, but I think this one probably contains most of your ideas. It suggests that you'd like to believe we are not the person we think we are. It's as if, then, we have come to this Earth as actors playing a part, and only when we go back to the In-Between Time do we find out who we "truly are". I should imagine that, since this is how you would like things to be, you would therefore like to think that Hitler is actually a really nice guy and ... since he will remember everything ... will wonder what the heck made him into such a monster. But how could this nice guy live with the knowledge of what he's done? Wouldn't the IBT be full of criminals in agony? And even if he came back to Earth as Saint Teresa, he'd still have to return eventually to the IBT, and remember the screams. So I think your ideal IBT would have to contain the option of eternal death, wouldn't it? I suspect also that the realistic you (as opposed to the idealistic one represented here) will wonder as I do how the nice "true" Hitler can have been metamorphosed into the tyrant, and indeed how any identity is formed in the first place or can continue in the second place! -As regards NDEs, I'm not sure that every single one is pleasant ... David will know more than I do. And of course the majority of resuscitated patients don't have one anyway, which is a problem when we try to work out what's going on. But I find it surprising that some people want to stay in the "IBT", as if they no longer care about the people they are leaving behind. Perhaps someone should do a more detailed study of these patients ... their backgrounds and family relationships. Why do they no longer care about their loved ones on Earth? In your IBT they apparently won't forget them, so what would be the ideal for you: that we do care, or we don't care? And if we do care, how do you visualize relationships with, say, the 100 different partners and families we might have worked our way through in our last 100 incarnations (not to mention their own partners and families)? Sorry if these questions seem silly, but as you'll have gathered, I do have a great deal of difficulty visualizing ANY kind of afterlife that makes sense.-I don't know if Tony is following this discussion, but Tony, if you are, I would be interested to know your views on NDEs, especially since you seem to think of an afterlife only in terms of a physical resurrection.
Afterlife
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 22, 2013, 19:03 (4105 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: but as you'll have gathered, I do have a great deal of difficulty visualizing ANY kind of afterlife that makes sense.- The Kaballah has opinions. You attend your own funeral. You may be reincarnated if you haven't completed your life's work. You may end up in limbo at first. And if you don't want to reach the 'light' (think God) you won't. And their form of meditation is not turning everything off in their brain, it is actively turning everything on. From Rabbi David Aaron's book, Endless Light, 1997.-About 20% of resuscitiations have NDE's. Some NDE's are bad, in the 5-10% range.
Afterlife
by BBella , Thursday, January 24, 2013, 22:43 (4103 days ago) @ dhw
you'd like to believe we are not the person we think we are. It's as if, then, we have come to this Earth as actors playing a part, and only when we go back to the In-Between Time do we find out who we "truly are". I should imagine that, since this is how you would like things to be, you would therefore like to think that Hitler is actually a really nice guy and ... since he will remember everything ... will wonder what the heck made him into such a monster. -I would like to think that in the IBT there is no good - bad soul, just souls without judgment (in the sense of good and evil) since the IBT would be a place of reflection and all knowing, unlike places of forgetfulness like it is here on Earth, where what we know is only gained from a limited source. In the IBT, I'd like to think we are aware of and connected to knowledge and comprehension collected from the ATI (All That Is). ->But how could this nice guy live with the knowledge of what he's done? Wouldn't the IBT be full of criminals in agony? -I'd like to think that every soul has a choice to fill a position or fulfill a mission (or just visit to visit) on whatever plane of material existence they choose to come into. In the collective conscience of the ATI, there may be a knowledge and understanding of the evolution of places like Earth's limited material consciousness knowing, which would differ from the knowledge of the unlimited IBT's collective conscious. Possibly, such a situation as Hitler brought about, may work for Earth's evolving human nature, in the long run - learning by histories mistakes. So much goes on here that is horrific to the human conscience (as well as wonderful), and it definitely brings me comfort to think that in the IBT, it is understood the purpose and balance of it all. ->I suspect also that the realistic you (as opposed to the idealistic one represented here) will wonder as I do how the nice "true" Hitler can have been metamorphosed into the tyrant, and indeed how any identity is formed in the first place or can continue in the second place!-I find it quite easy to imagine that when someone comes into the material plane of existence, they remember nothing about who they are in the IBT, yet, a part of their subconscious does know their purpose here, if they have one, and that their subconscious is connected to their purpose or mission here. -Because I am a vivid dreamer and since I've done some pretty bad things as well as some very phenomenal things in my dreams, as well as had some ongoing dreams throughout my life, I wouldn't be surprised if science one day proves that when we dream, we actually do the things we dream we do in the other planes of existence. That's what it feels like to me many times when I wake up, and sometimes it takes me awhile to let go of what just happened in my dreams, but I do because of what's going on in this life. So I can imagine that even if I knew for a fact that what I dreamed was real and I had killed someone in my dream, I don't think I would suffer here for the killing there (not to say it wouldn't filter thru now and then). Because I would understand that in that life, whatever I did was done because of what was going on in that life and not connected to who I am and what is going on in this one.-I appreciate your digging deeper/asking questions about how I would like things to be. It helps me to look further into possibilities and the what if's, which I really enjoy doing. -continued...
Afterlife
by BBella , Thursday, January 24, 2013, 23:37 (4103 days ago) @ dhw
As regards NDEs, I'm not sure that every single one is pleasant ... David will know more than I do. And of course the majority of resuscitated patients don't have one anyway, which is a problem when we try to work out what's going on. -It's not surprising to me that not all NDE's are pleasant or that not all patients resuscitated have memory of the over there. Not all people remember their dreams, or are psychic, or have close encounters with aliens or UFO's either. There are a lot of things in the immaterial world that is subjective to perspective just like in the material world. Even in the material world, we may all agree on some things but there is much more that we do not agree on. Most everything is perspective (if not everything), as science is closer to understanding, and will one day have to admit. So, it seems to me, it is true for both the material and the immaterial planes of existence. ->But I find it surprising that some people want to stay in the "IBT", as if they no longer care about the people they are leaving behind. Perhaps someone should do a more detailed study of these patients ... their backgrounds and family relationships. Why do they no longer care about their loved ones on Earth? -I liken it to this: No matter how wonderful my life is here (and I do think it is wonderful) sometimes when I am dreaming and I am awakened from a good dream, I don't want to wake up - I want to stay in my dream. Sometimes those dreams have nothing to do with this life, in the sense that there is no one in it that is in my real life. I am unaware that I am even making a choice (of not wanting to go back to my family) by wanting to stay in my dream life. If that dream continued and never ended, would I even think of my family here? I don't know. But I think of the NDE's that experience this, is similar to what I experience in my IBT of waking and sleeping. They are moving from their life here into their life there. It isn't that you no longer care, or even will forget them, it's that you are moving back into your other identity, yet you aren't quite there yet. I would like to think that when you do finally make it fully into the other identity, you will remember everything. ->In your IBT they apparently won't forget them, so what would be the ideal for you: that we do care, or we don't care? And if we do care, how do you visualize relationships with, say, the 100 different partners and families we might have worked our way through in our last 100 incarnations (not to mention their own partners and families)?-I would like to think the reason a person can't imagine so many different lives and of being an eternal being with choices to incarnate here or there, is, for the most part, because we have limited capacity consciousness. Not because it is actually limited (because in some sense all consciousness is connected), but because the material brain is still evolving with the material world and so cannot imagine anything a part from the material world. So caring for others here on Earth (with limited consciousness) would be different than caring for others from the perspective of eternity (in light of the access to collective conscious).->Sorry if these questions seem silly, but as you'll have gathered, I do have a great deal of difficulty visualizing ANY kind of afterlife that makes sense.-I have a lot of respect for your questions and they have yet to ever seem silly. They are questions I would ask myself if I ever had time to...so I appreciate them greatly! As I said, I enjoy indulging in "what if's" since no one knows for sure and everything and anything is possible! So why not choose what would bring me the most comfort (when it comes to the afterlife) instead of using someone's else's ideas or beliefs.
Afterlife
BBELLA: I appreciate your digging deeper/asking questions about how I would like things to be. It helps me to look further into possibilities and the what if's, which I really enjoy doing.-Thank you. I'm always afraid the digging might cause offence. This post will be a higgledy-piggledy bush as I select extracts from your own, but it all revolves round identity.-Dhw: But how could this nice guy [Hitler] live with the knowledge of what he's done? Wouldn't the IBT [In Between Time] be full of criminals in agony? BBELLA: I'd like to think that every soul has a choice to fill a position or fulfill a mission (or just visit to visit) on whatever plane of material existence they choose to come into.-That means Hitler chose to become a monster ... which in my view already makes him a monster! It's like the piece about "karma" ... once you're bad, you're always bad. You wrote: "I would like to think that in the IBT there is no good - bad soul, just souls without judgment", but how could anyone remember what they've done, who they were, and yet be unaware of the concepts of good and bad they lived with and believed in during their past lives? BBELLA: Possibly, such a situation as Hitler brought about, may work for Earth's evolving human nature, in the long run - learning by histories mistakes. So much goes on here that is horrific to the human conscience (as well as wonderful), and it definitely brings me comfort to think that in the IBT, it is understood the purpose and balance of it all.-In your ideal scenario, then, there is a purpose. Perhaps you see it in terms of love and happiness? But if you talk of history's "mistakes", doesn't that automatically involve judgement, and good and bad? And why would the before-and-after monster Hitler think it was all a "mistake"? -BBELLA: I can imagine that even if I knew for a fact that what I dreamed was real and I had killed someone in my dream, I don't think I would suffer here for the killing there (not to say it wouldn't filter thru now and then). Because I would understand that in that life, whatever I did was done because of what was going on in that life and not connected to who I am and what is going on in this one.-This corresponds to some multiverse theories, with umpteen versions of ourselves existing elsewhere, and to the quantum phenomenon, with one thing being in two places at the same time. But what will be your feelings when you get to the IBT and discover you really are a murderer? And your alter ego doesn't care? How can both BBellas be you without any conflict? For me, this is a nightmare, not a dream! BBELLA: Most everything is perspective (if not everything), as science is closer to understanding, and will one day have to admit. So, it seems to me, it is true for both the material and the immaterial planes of existence. This ties in with our discussions on subjectivity: ultimately no-one knows what constitutes "reality". However, when I go to the IBT, any new knowledge will still have to be subjectively processed (according to my perspective) if I haven't become an automaton. (See next set of questions!) Dhw: I find it surprising that some people want to stay in the "IBT", as if they no longer care about the people they are leaving behind. -BBELLA: It isn't that you no longer care, or even will forget them, it's that you are moving back into your other identity, yet you aren't quite there yet. I would like to think that when you do finally make it fully into the other identity, you will remember everything. -Which other identity? We'll have had so many. (See below. Sorry to keep dodging around!)) You wrote that caring "would be different from the perspective of eternity", but if Hitler and his like keep choosing to be monsters, will the eternal perspective be "It doesn't matter"? What purpose can ANY experience serve then? What will be balanced with what in your ideal scenario?-BBELLA: I would like to think the reason a person can't imagine so many different lives and of being an eternal being with choices to incarnate here or there, is, for the most part, because we have limited capacity consciousness. Not because it is actually limited (because in some sense all consciousness is connected), but because the material brain is still evolving with the material world and so cannot imagine anything apart from the material world.-If I have such a thing as a soul, it has to be the me who directs the material brain (as opposed to a me created by and dependent on the material brain ... in which case there is no soul and no afterlife). But that soul still has to be limited if it is to be me and nobody else. If there are a whole lot of totally different "me's" who are reincarnated in different forms on Earth and don't remember being me, they might as well be a whole lot of other people. If they all come together in the IBT, as nice dhw's and nasty dhw's, loving BBella's, murderous BBella's, shan't we need the services of a heavenly shrink? And even then, what "me" will he/she come up with?
Afterlife
by David Turell , Saturday, January 26, 2013, 17:14 (4101 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: This corresponds to some multiverse theories, with umpteen versions of ourselves existing elsewhere, and to the quantum phenomenon, with one thing being in two places at the same time. -I know you are just 'supposing' but not so fast! All of the multiverse stuff or multiple selves is philosophic junk, no chance of being proven:-"While Soler Gil and Alfonseca can't disprove the proposals of infinite repetition, they emphasize that the point of their critique is to show that the idea remains in the realm of philosophy, mythology, and sci-fi tales, not modern cosmology. They call the speculation "ironic science," a term used by science journalist John Horgan to describe options that do not converge on truth but are at best "interesting." Despite the accounts of many popular science books, the idea that our lives are being repeated an infinite number of times somewhere out in the universe is in no way certain and far from either probable or plausible."- Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-dont-infinite-scientists.html#jCp
Afterlife
dhw: This corresponds to some multiverse theories, with umpteen versions of ourselves existing elsewhere, and to the quantum phenomenon, with one thing being in two places at the same time. -DAVID: I know you are just 'supposing' but not so fast! All of the multiverse stuff or multiple selves is philosophic junk, no chance of being proven. "While Soler Gil and Alfonseca can't disprove the proposals of infinite repetition, they emphasize that the point of their critique is to show that the idea remains in the realm of philosophy, mythology, and sci-fi tales, not modern cosmology."-You party pooper, you! BBella is describing her ideal form of afterlife. I just slipped in the bit about multiverses and quantum to point out that her ideas were not far removed from other people's "scientific" speculations. It's a bit like folk who, after they have genuinely used science to prove the unlikelihood of chance creating life, go on to describe a creative and eternal intelligence that is within and without the universe: no chance of being proven or disproven, and the idea remains in the realm of philosophy, mythology, and sci-fi tales, not modern science.
Afterlife
by David Turell , Sunday, January 27, 2013, 17:33 (4100 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You party pooper, you! BBella is describing her ideal form of afterlife. I just slipped in the bit about multiverses and quantum to point out that her ideas were not far removed from other people's "scientific" speculations. It's a bit like folk who, after they have genuinely used science to prove the unlikelihood of chance creating life, go on to describe a creative and eternal intelligence that is within and without the universe: no chance of being proven or disproven, and the idea remains in the realm of philosophy, mythology, and sci-fi tales, not modern science.-You forgot theology!
Afterlife
by BBella , Monday, January 28, 2013, 06:14 (4100 days ago) @ dhw
[In talking about Hitler in the Afterlife (IBT) dhw asked: how could anyone remember what they've done, who they were, and yet be unaware of the concepts of good and bad they lived with and believed in during their past lives?-I would like to think that in the IBT concepts like good and bad are understood in a completely different way than anything we can conceive of here on Earth and so is processed differently since we have access to all knowledge of the CC (collective conscious) of the ATI (All That Is). > BBELLA: Possibly, such a situation as Hitler brought about, may work for Earth's evolving human nature, in the long run - learning by histories mistakes. So much goes on here that is horrific to the human conscience (as well as wonderful), and it definitely brings me comfort to think that in the IBT, it is understood the purpose and balance of it all. > > In your ideal scenario, then, there is a purpose. Perhaps you see it in terms of love and happiness? -First off, remember the souls in the IBT have eternal life. Not to say that is the way it has to be, possibly a soul can be extinguished if a soul chooses. But a purpose for eternal souls? I would think that would be left up to the souls themselves to choose a purpose if they thought they needed one for a time. Because if I begin to think of an overarching purpose for everything in the unseen realm, then that brings in overlords for everything that IS! There may be overlords in the physical realm of matter, gods and so forth. But in the soul plane of existence, I'd like to think there is no overlord or ruler, and that souls there are left to find their way with the help or guidance of their connection to the collective ALL That Is. Oh, and I did want to mention the possibility of a place between matter and the IBT that may account for paranormal activities like ghost. ->But if you talk of history's "mistakes", doesn't that automatically involve judgement, and good and bad? And why would the before-and-after monster Hitler think it was all a "mistake"? -The word mistake wasn't used from the perspective of the IBT (as a soul wouldn't think in terms of good, bad, mistakes, etc), but from the perspective of we humans who examine our past history and try and decide or make judgments about how something like that happens, we may decide allowing something that to happen again is wrong, so we direct our future away from allowing it for the betterment of all future lives. Hopefully that event in history detours anything like that from ever happening again. -> > BBELLA: I can imagine that even if I knew for a fact that what I dreamed was real and I had killed someone in my dream, I don't think I would suffer here for the killing there (not to say it wouldn't filter thru now and then). Because I would understand that in that life, whatever I did was done because of what was going on in that life and not connected to who I am and what is going on in this one. > > This corresponds to some multiverse theories, with umpteen versions of ourselves existing elsewhere, and to the quantum phenomenon, with one thing being in two places at the same time.-Possibly. But I would like to think that when I am here I am fully here, just without the information I would have when I am there, in the IBT. Because here I know nothing except for who I am here.->But what will be your feelings when you get to the IBT and discover you really are a murderer? And your alter ego doesn't care? How can both BBellas be you without any conflict? For me, this is a nightmare, not a dream!-I don't see it like an alter ego. To me, again, it would be more like waking from a dream. In a dream I am fully who I am in the dream, but when I wake up, even tho I have near full remembrance of who I was in the dream, I don't get confused and think of myself as that person in the dream, because I know I'm not. So even tho a soul plays a role in this life (for the betterment of society or to help support another soul, or just because), they are not that person in the IBT even tho they have full memory of that person and their connections to everyone in that life. Of course, if any of this is true, the abilities of a soul in the IBT could not be comprehended by a human who knows nothing more than what he has experienced here. -> BBELLA: Most everything is perspective (if not everything), as science is closer to understanding, and will one day have to admit. So, it seems to me, it is true for both the material and the immaterial planes of existence. > > This ties in with our discussions on subjectivity: ultimately no-one knows what constitutes "reality". However, when I go to the IBT, any new knowledge will still have to be subjectively processed (according to my perspective) if I haven't become an automaton. (See next set of questions!)-I agree. And that process would be similar, but more entailed, I would think, to what those who have vivid dreams, as I do, have to go thru when we wake up and have to acclimate to this life from the dream life. continued...
Afterlife
by BBella , Monday, January 28, 2013, 07:08 (4100 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Monday, January 28, 2013, 07:18
Dhw: I find it surprising that some people want to stay in the "IBT", as if they no longer care about the people they are leaving behind. > > BBELLA: It isn't that you no longer care, or even will forget them, it's that you are moving back into your other identity, yet you aren't quite there yet. I would like to think that when you do finally make it fully into the other identity, you will remember everything. > >dhw: Which other identity? We'll have had so many.-I'm wondering if you have vivid dreams? Some people don't have any memory of dreams when they wake up and some have very fuzzy memories or barely any, so it might be more difficult to understand. I just happen to be one of those who dream in technicolor and many times a dream will have a beginning and ending just like a movie. Yet, when I wake up, I have only one identity even if I could remember vividly all my different identities in all of my dreams, I know who I am and who I am not when I am awake. I don't get confused, even when I dream continuing dreams that take off where the other leaves off...I still wake up and know who I am and do not confuse myself with my dream life self. No matter what I've experienced in my dreams, I am still the same person that experienced both all my dreams and this life. So, even a human brain can, in some small sense, imagine what it might be like in an Afterlife scenario with many lives yet one soul. If we, as humans, can handle vivid dreaming most every night and not get confused between our night life and day life, I would like to think a soul connected to the collective memory and consciousness of the ATI would have no problem handling my Afterlife scenario. -As you probably know there are a lot of older tribes, the aborigine being one, that believe this life is the dream life and we go back to the real life when we die, so it's not a new concept. ->You wrote that caring "would be different from the perspective of eternity", but if Hitler and his like keep choosing to be monsters, will the eternal perspective be "It doesn't matter"? What purpose can ANY experience serve then? What will be balanced with what in your ideal scenario?-I can only speak of what I would like things to be. And in that vein, a soul that chose a life like Hitler, would not "keep choosing" lives to be what we on earth consider evil or monsters and would have only done so in the first place, for the betterment of Earths future. I would like to think that souls in the IBT have an understanding that makes EVERYTHING make sense, even those things that to us seem senseless. > BBELLA: I would like to think the reason a person can't imagine so many different lives and of being an eternal being with choices to incarnate here or there, is, for the most part, because we have limited capacity consciousness. Not because it is actually limited (because in some sense all consciousness is connected), but because the material brain is still evolving with the material world and so cannot imagine anything apart from the material world. > >dhw: If I have such a thing as a soul, it has to be the me who directs the material brain (as opposed to a me created by and dependent on the material brain ... in which case there is no soul and no afterlife). But that soul still has to be limited if it is to be me and nobody else. If there are a whole lot of totally different "me's" who are reincarnated in different forms on Earth and don't remember being me, they might as well be a whole lot of other people. If they all come together in the IBT, as nice dhw's and nasty dhw's, loving BBella's, murderous BBella's, shan't we need the services of a heavenly shrink? And even then, what "me" will he/she come up with?-Sorry, I am completely lost with your last paragraph.
Afterlife
Once again, your post is full of rich ideas, but I'd like to confine this response to the following exchange between us, because there's obviously a major point I'm missing. BBELLA: I would like to think the reason a person can't imagine so many different lives and of being an eternal being with choices to incarnate here or there, is, for the most part, because we have limited capacity consciousness. Not because it is actually limited (because in some sense all consciousness is connected), but because the material brain is still evolving with the material world and so cannot imagine anything apart from the material world. dhw: If I have such a thing as a soul, it has to be the me who directs the material brain (as opposed to a me created by and dependent on the material brain ... in which case there is no soul and no afterlife). But that soul still has to be limited if it is to be me and nobody else. If there are a whole lot of totally different "me's" who are reincarnated in different forms on Earth and don't remember being me, they might as well be a whole lot of other people. If they all come together in the IBT, as nice dhw's and nasty dhw's, loving BBella's, murderous BBella's, shan't we need the services of a heavenly shrink? And even then, what "me" will he/she come up with?-BBELLA: Sorry, I am completely lost with your last paragraph.-It may well be that this is the key to all my questions and all your answers! Everything revolves around identity. If there is an afterlife, it must be the soul, not the material brain that is the seat of our identity (because the material brain dies). But even in the IBT this soul has to be limited to whatever makes me different from you and everyone else. Otherwise we would all be the same! However, in your ideal scenario, we have all chosen to live on this Earth with lots of different, sequent identities/souls, and we only remember them all when we get back to the IBT. And so although I am dhw now, in earlier lives I may once have been William Shakespeare (yes, please), Isaac Newton, Napoleon, Gustav Mahler, and Micky the Murderer. Now in dreams I may do all kinds of things I don't do in "real" life, but as you say yourself, when I wake up I am dhw again. However, when I get to the IBT, according to your scenario, I really WILL be Shakespeare, Newton, Napoleon, Mahler, Micky and dhw all rolled into one, so which of them is "me"? Alternatively, if you're saying ALL of those identities were dreams, who is the "me" that remembers the dreams? If the afterlife "me" is not dhw but somebody else, "I" might just as well not have an afterlife!-Many apologies again if I keep missing your point, but I guess clarification is what we're always looking for in these discussions.
Afterlife
by BBella , Wednesday, January 30, 2013, 04:24 (4098 days ago) @ dhw
It may well be that this is the key to all my questions and all your answers! Everything revolves around identity. -I've known all along that identity is your main concern when it comes to my afterlife scenario. And, again, I do appreciate the questions as it helps me to delve deeper into my own blissfully shallow ideals for the Afterlife which I've never really ventured very far into. Just to rehash what you already know, but maybe just to clarify - at the time that I created my scenario, it was in reaction to the realization that ideas about the afterlife are man made and that no proof of any one idea/religion/philosophy/etc of the afterlife actually exists (that I know of), except for maybe NDE's. The thought that this life is all there is, I admit, frightened me. And since I knew that proof could not be had about an afterlife, I decided to create my own ideal scenario of the afterlife that made me feel comforted. Over the years I've allowed others personal experiences (NDE's etc) and my own dreams to add to my evolving hypothesis. -> If there is an afterlife, it must be the soul, not the material brain that is the seat of our identity (because the material brain dies). -Yes, I think of it as the material brain holds the Earth identity/memory gained in the lifetime here, and the subconscious is the go between of the soul identity and earth identity thru which we can be guided in our material life.->But even in the IBT this soul has to be limited to whatever makes me different from you and everyone else. Otherwise we would all be the same! -It would be no different than what we experience in our material life because consciousness is consciousness. As we've discussed in prior discussions about consciousness, we are only conscious of one moment at a time, and I would think it is the same in the Afterlife. I have the ability to remember dreams/memories/identities any time I choose, but I only identify with who I am conscious of being, one identity at a time, even if I have the memory in my dreams/past life of being someone else.->However, in your ideal scenario, we have all chosen to live on this Earth with lots of different, sequent identities/souls, and we only remember them all when we get back to the IBT. -As a soul, we may never choose to visit Earth since we would have many options in the All That Is of places to go and things to do. Or we might choose to visit once or twice, etc. It would seem if we spend a lot of time coming back here as different people we may be on a learning curb as a soul or might have a mission to help the material Earth evolve. ->Now in dreams I may do all kinds of things I don't do in "real" life, but as you say yourself, when I wake up I am dhw again. However, when I get to the IBT, according to your scenario, I really WILL be Shakespeare, Newton, Napoleon, Mahler, Micky and dhw all rolled into one, so which of them is "me"?-When you are in the IBT you are no longer any of those people that you incarnated here on earth to be, just like I am no longer the people in my dreams when I wake up. If I were in the IBT and remembering lives I've lived, I am remembering lives that are now dead, just as my dreams are done and over when I am awake. I am who I am, even tho when I go to sleep tonight and dream I might be someone else. But when I wake up I am still who I am living only this life. -As I said before, if in the future science proves when we dream we are not just experiencing dreams we are actually experiencing other lives, we would still only be who we are when we awake. The knowledge that our dreams are real and not just dreams would not change or effect who we are in this life (except possibly thru our emotions). What happens in the other lives happens because of the scenarios in those lives, not because of what's going on in this life. In my thinking, it would be very similar, if not exactly the same, waking from a dream if science proved we are truly transitioning into other lives when we dream. -Why would a soul even choose to live a life on Earth? I would think it would be for two reasons: 1) Because they can. 2) To experience something a soul could not other wise experience except by entering life within matter on Earth. Eternity is a long time. Possibly Earth may have been created for no other reason than for souls to experience the very experiences we experience here.->Alternatively, if you're saying ALL of those identities were dreams, who is the "me" that remembers the dreams? If the afterlife "me" is not dhw but somebody else, "I" might just as well not have an afterlife!-Ironically, you are speaking from the life of dhw with his perspective (and not the perspective of your soul life -duh)so when you say, "I" might just as well not have an afterlife" - from dhw's perspective you are correct, because the life of dhw will no longer exist when you die. So in that sense, dhw doesn't have an afterlife. So in that sense you are right. The only difference in the way we see things, about the IBT, is I've imagined an eternal soul identity that when I die, I will awaken into and for whom this life on Earth that I've lived was only a dream for. Yes, this life will have ended, but my consciousness continues on in the life I had before I came here.
Afterlife
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 30, 2013, 05:10 (4098 days ago) @ BBella
> bbella: As I said before, if in the future science proves when we dream we are not just experiencing dreams we are actually experiencing other lives, we would still only be who we are when we awake. -When I dream it is always an aspect of me. I am in all my dreams. I've never been anyone else. And I have always had vivid stories in my dreams in color. Some of it I can relate to current events. Some of it is off the wall. - > bbella: Yes, this life will have ended, but my consciousness continues on in the life I had before I came here.-I have never experienced a past life in dreams or otherwise. On the other hand my partially phychic wife has had dreams of older relatives she's never met, but when looking at pictures realizes she has seen them. She has done geneology in recent years and that is when she realized what she had 'seen'. Is she experiencing existing souls, or past events that have enough energy to stick around?
Afterlife
by BBella , Wednesday, January 30, 2013, 18:57 (4097 days ago) @ David Turell
> > bbella: As I said before, if in the future science proves when we dream we are not just experiencing dreams we are actually experiencing other lives, we would still only be who we are when we awake. > > When I dream it is always an aspect of me. I am in all my dreams. I've never been anyone else. And I have always had vivid stories in my dreams in color. Some of it I can relate to current events. Some of it is off the wall. David, I am me in my dreams too, just more times than not it's not the me of my life now. For example, I've dreamed of being a man, a child, a woman that's nothing like who I am, animals, and even a sea creature that was and early protoplasm. Most roles I've experienced in dreams have no resemblance to who I am in my life now - For example, in many dreams since I was a child, I am an astronaut visiting different planets and sometimes I was stuck in outer space with no hope of being rescued (I haven't had that dream in a long time now but do still dream of visiting other planets as an astronaut). But many times I can still draw out of the dreams similar emotions having to do with my current life. > > bbella: Yes, this life will have ended, but my consciousness continues on in the life I had before I came here. > > I have never experienced a past life in dreams or otherwise.-I can't say I'm not experiencing past or future lives in my dreams because I've had many dreams of times past and futuristic times, and times on other planets and other dimensions, even where I've passed thru dimensions in the dreams from this earth to other dimensions in other places here and to other places not on earth.->On the other hand my partially phychic wife has had dreams of older relatives she's never met, but when looking at pictures realizes she has seen them. She has done geneology in recent years and that is when she realized what she had 'seen'. Is she experiencing existing souls, or past events that have enough energy to stick around?-I have dreamed of being people of the past that I would not be surprised to find out those people were past family members. Sometimes I think our genes alone carry memories and emotions from our ancestors, especially emotions people experience they can't account for. For example, I have a grandniece who was deathly afraid of having water splashed in her face. Being close to her when she was a baby, we noticed she had this fear even as a new born. She has dreamed all of her life that she was drowning by being held down. This grandniece asked her aunt, another niece who is has very strong psychic abilities to help her try and find the root of the problem, as now having children of her own, my grandniece wanted to be able to take them swimming but she had a great fear of getting her face splashed. So my niece did a simple relaxation with her and let her express more information about her fears. She ended up relating a past life where she had been murdered by drowning. It was a very emotional experience for her to go thru but she no longer has this fear and it has changed her life. -Stories like these that I've personally experienced and other stories I've heard over the years brings more light to the mysteries of consciousness that makes me think the realm of consciousness is more than a simple development of the mind thru evolution, but more of a connection to a plane of existence that science has barely begun to explore.
Afterlife
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 30, 2013, 22:15 (4097 days ago) @ BBella
> bbella: David, I am me in my dreams too, just more times than not it's not the me of my life now. For example, I've dreamed of being a man, a child, a woman that's nothing like who I am, animals, and even a sea creature that was and early protoplasm. Most roles I've experienced in dreams have no resemblance to who I am in my life now - -Your dreams are very unique compaired to mine. i am me in the here and now. As a kid I had the usual flying dreams and fear of falling while flying, but not much else.-When my first wife died, I had vivid dreams of abandoning her when she was in trouble, but that is because I married shortly after her death) to my current wife (about 6 months later) and my kids, (in their 20's and 30's) were upset. But I had some counselling and my future life was set, so over a period of about two years the dreams left. I recognize the resolution of guilt, so I can tell you most of my dreams are my reality related.-> > b bella:Stories like these that I've personally experienced and other stories I've heard over the years brings more light to the mysteries of consciousness that makes me think the realm of consciousness is more than a simple development of the mind thru evolution, but more of a connection to a plane of existence that science has barely begun to explore.-Rupert Sheldrake, the British biologist, is some one you need to get to know. His reasearch on human consciousness is quite convincing to me. And also species consciousness in lower animals.
Afterlife
BBella: As I said before, if in the future science proves when we dream we are not just experiencing dreams we are actually experiencing other lives, we would still only be who we are when we awake.-1) So at this earthly stage, I am still dhw, and the other lives are just dreams to me, even if they turn out to have been real. (See 2)-Dhw: Alternatively, if you're saying ALL of those identities were dreams, who is the "me" that remembers the dreams? If the afterlife "me" is not dhw but somebody else, "I" might just as well not have an afterlife!-BBELLA: Ironically, you are speaking from the life of dhw with his perspective (and not the perspective of your soul life -duh)so when you say, "I" might just as well not have an afterlife" - from dhw's perspective you are correct, because the life of dhw will no longer exist when you die. [...] The only difference in the way we see things, about the IBT, is I've imagined an eternal soul identity that when I die, I will awaken into and for whom this life on Earth that I've lived was only a dream for. -2) At this IBT stage, all other lives plus that of dhw are a dream, and the "eternal soul identity" or "consciousness" is no longer that of dhw.-There are two ways in which I can PARTLY latch onto this. Firstly, when I look back over my life, the past is certainly dreamlike. I recognize the child, boy, young man, middle-aged man, venerable gentleman as myself, but there's a distance between all of us. "Life's a dream" is of course a cliché, but clichés usually have some truth in them. It often does feel as if it WAS (though never IS) a dream. So life is one long sequence of soon-to-be-unreal experiences that subtly change us into what we "really" are in the present, which rapidly becomes an unreal past (Matt will like this.)-The second possible avenue is creative work. I think most artists and writers would agree that their prime source is the subconscious. I can "become" someone different from myself, and yet feel his/her reality so strongly that others may wonder how I can sense and convey that character's thoughts. A sensitive reader will have the same experience as they "identify" with a character. However, I remain myself, dhw, throughout the process, and so does the reader. This is not a new identity, but an ability to temporarily split the identity into real and imaginary selves (a process also vital to empathy). You say: "the subconscious is the go between of the soul identity and earth identity thru which we can be guided in our material life", which could suggest that my subconscious is actually reproducing past events or identities I don't remember. It does make sense, though I have to say it's anything but an ideal scenario for me!-I can therefore fully accept the continuous sequence of realities that turn into dreams as we move ever onwards. However, what still doesn't make sense to me is the idea of a dhw present in the IBT who is not me. You say "the life of dhw will no longer exist when I die", but it's the consciousness (not the life) of dhw that constitutes my identity/my soul, and I cannot see how MY consciousness and subconsciousness can move into an identity that is NOT mine. That makes me into somebody else's dream, and so I become his/her memory without any presence of my own. In other words, it's the gap between my current soul and this different, "eternal soul identity" that I can't bridge intellectually or imaginatively. Perhaps ... if I'm not trying your patience too much ... you could explain again what this "eternal soul identity" is comprised of, if it's not my own conscious and subconscious selves.-DAVID: [...] my partially psychic wife has had dreams of older relatives she's never met, but when looking at pictures realizes she has seen them. She has done geneology in recent years and that is when she realized what she had 'seen'. Is she experiencing existing souls, or past events that have enough energy to stick around?-Whatever the explanation, it must again be linked to the subconscious. It would be interesting to know more ... e.g. whether these are enjoyable experiences, and what sort of communication, if any, your wife has with these people in her dreams. Does she herself have any theories?-*****************************-BBella, I've just read your post of last night, with the remarkable account of your grandniece's phobia. You conclude that "the realm of consciousness is more than a simple development of the mind thru evolution, but more of a connection to a plane of existence that science has barely begun to explore." You said in an earlier post that our consciousness is limited by the material world, and similarly I'm not at all sure that science can explore this plane of existence. And since it's still incapable of explaining consciousness and all its manifestations, that is all the more reason why we should remain open to other avenues of approach to the unsolved mysteries of life. Once again, thank you for all these insights and personal experiences.
Afterlife
by BBella , Friday, February 01, 2013, 07:11 (4096 days ago) @ dhw
"Life's a dream" is of course a cliché, but clichés usually have some truth in them. It often does feel as if it WAS (though never IS) a dream. So life is one long sequence of soon-to-be-unreal experiences that subtly change us into what we "really" are in the present, which rapidly becomes an unreal past (Matt will like this.)-dhw: "life is one long sequence of...experiences that subtly change us" <-- Behind the meaning of this sentence may be the answer to the question of identity. The body in which your consciousness resides is what changes over the years, but the conscious/observer/witness of those changes does not itself change. The conscious energy that brings the body to life observes and holds the memory of the life lived. Who we truly are is the conscious observer that observes all that the body experiences and feels. And wherever and whatever that conscious observer experiences, whether it is here, there, in dreams or wherever, it is still the same conscious observer. ->I can therefore fully accept the continuous sequence of realities that turn into dreams as we move ever onwards. However, what still doesn't make sense to me is the idea of a dhw present in the IBT who is not me. -It's not the body of dhw that will be present in the IBT, it will be the conscious/witness/observer of dhw's life that will be present in the IBT. When you've ended a story of a character you've written/created and all is said and done, the witness/observer/creator of that character still lives on even tho the character himself is no longer present in your life. You have his whole life stored in your memory, but you are no longer him. It is the same with dreams, and could be the same with the afterlife.->You say "the life of dhw will no longer exist when I die", but it's the consciousness (not the life) of dhw that constitutes my identity/my soul, and I cannot see how MY consciousness and subconsciousness can move into an identity that is NOT mine. -It's not two separate identities that you are moving into, its one consciousness observing a life on it's journey through time or whatever the soul experiences. Aren't you "moving into an identity" when you create a new character in a story? Yet when you move out of that identity nothing has changed except your memory of that characters life. Without you that character wouldn't even be. The you that has observed and stored the memory of your life here is who will be leaving the body at death. Then you will journey thru the experience of re-membering your previous IBT life along with your new memories of the life of dhw stored in your memory bank, which could be recalled just like any memory. It would be the same or similar as you remembering the character you created's life, or me remembering a dream that I woke up from. ->That makes me into somebody else's dream, -Without you dhw is nothing but dirt. There's not two identities only one. "You" have given your body life, because you wanted to experience what you have and will be experiencing here. Without you, the you I am addressing, there would be no dhw or soul to move on into the afterlife. So you are not someone else's dream, you are you, living this life now, whether you came here from the IBT or live on in an afterlife or not. I would like to think, if I see you in the afterlife, I would recognize you as dhw because that is our common memory, unless we already had common memory in the IBT together before our lives here. I would then know you as both dhw and however I know you there in the IBT. We may even have had a few lives together we could discuss in the IBT, and may have decided to touch base here since we both chose to come here at the same time (we said, gee, how fun would that be? lol). -> and so I become his/her memory without any presence of my own. -The only presence you have leaves when you decide to vacate your present body. This is true whether there is an afterlife or not. The difference is, I'm saying I'd like to think that your life did not begin in this body of dhw and it will not end when you no longer reside in the body of dhw. That your conscious soul, that which observes all that you experience, haves a life much longer than just the 100 years or so you will have lived on this earth. ->In other words, it's the gap between my current soul and this different, "eternal soul identity" that I can't bridge intellectually or imaginatively. -There is no gap, because you don't have a current soul (altho you do have a current body in which to reside). You have only one soul. Whether it be the eternal soul that entered your body at birth and animated it into a life called dhw for which you have lived thru till you decide to leave the body of dhw and continue on your journey, or whether it be the only soul lived here as dhw. There is only one.->Perhaps ... if I'm not trying your patience too much ... you could explain again what this "eternal soul identity" is comprised of, if it's not my own conscious and subconscious selves.-It is one and the same. The soul is what animates the body and gives it life - consciousness and subconsciousness, and the soul is what leaves the body when it's time to move on. I hope you have the picture now, no problem if you don't. I appreciate the exploratory surgery of my conception of the soul and the afterlife. I'm learning as I go.
Afterlife
We're discussing BBella's ideal form of afterlife, and again I shall pick out sections of your post that highlight the big problem which I'm afraid I still have with your concept of identity. I do appreciate your patience.-dhw: "...life is one long sequence of...experiences that subtly change us" BBella: Behind the meaning of this sentence may be the answer to the question of identity. The body in which your consciousness resides is what changes over the years, but the conscious/observer/witness of those changes does not itself change. -If there is such a thing as the soul, I would see it quite differently. Yes, the body changes all the time, but that would only be the container of my identity, and although I was no doubt born with many readymade characteristics, these are worked on and in many cases can certainly be changed by experience. I do not believe that as a baby I was already the same self-conscious, self-observing, self-witnessing dhw I am today. You have described changes in your own character that have come about through experience. The body may influence the identity (e.g. through illness, drugs, accidents), but I just can't see how the soul can be a fully formed and unchanging identity from our birth to our death. If it's not the soul that thinks our thoughts, and that broadens, changes, refines them moment by moment, what is it? Not my body, unless my brain IS my soul. BBELLA: It's not the body of dhw that will be present in the IBT, it will be the conscious/witness/observer of dhw's life that will be present in the IBT. [...] The you that has observed and stored the memory of your life here is who will be leaving the body at death. Then you will journey thru the experience of re-membering your previous IBT life along with your new memories of the life of dhw stored in your memory bank, which could be recalled just like any memory. It would be the same or similar as you remembering the character you created's life, or me remembering a dream that I woke up from. But just as I am NOT the character I created, and you are NOT the other person you became in a dream (like David, I'm always me in my dreams), according to your scenario I will NOT be dhw in the IBT. What survives will be the pre-dhw and post-dhw, conscious, unchanged and unchanging observer of dhw, and that makes dhw into somebody else's dream.-BBELLA: Without you dhw is nothing but dirt. There's not two identities only one. "You" have given your body life, because you wanted to experience what you have and will be experiencing here. Without you, the you I am addressing, there would be no dhw or soul to move on into the afterlife. So you are not someone else's dream, you are you, living this life now, whether you came here from the IBT or live on in an afterlife or not. I am not someone else's dream NOW, but I will be in your IBT. Then dhw will be the dream and memory of that fully formed, unchanging identity described above, which observed me, and then left me for dead. DHW: In other words, it's the gap between my current soul and this different, "eternal soul identity" that I can't bridge intellectually or imaginatively. BBELLA: There is no gap, because you don't have a current soul (altho you do have a current body in which to reside). You have only one soul. Whether it be the eternal soul that entered your body at birth and animated it into a life called dhw for which you have lived thru till you decide to leave the body of dhw and continue on your journey, or whether it be the only soul lived here as dhw. There is only one.-I think that sums up the problem I have here. Yes, if there is such a thing as a soul, there is only one, and I equate it with "my" identity, which IS current. It has to be the "me" that resides within my body and thinks dhw's thoughts. Not my arms, legs, or ... crucially ... my brain, but the ever learning (though alas all too frequently forgetting!), subtly changing "me" that gives orders to my brain. You go on to say: "The soul is what animates the body and gives it life - consciousness and subconsciousness, and the soul is what leaves the body when it's time to move on." That I understand perfectly. The difference between us is that I see it as my current (and maybe future) ever-developing self, whereas your version makes it into an unchanging observer that is simply occupying my body now (and has occupied other people's), and eventually will move on, with "me" as just a memory.
Afterlife
by BBella , Sunday, February 03, 2013, 07:19 (4094 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: If it's not the soul that thinks our thoughts, and that broadens, changes, refines them moment by moment, what is it? Not my body, unless my brain IS my soul.-I think of the soul as the witness to or the observer of experiences, a gatherer of memories thru experiences so to speak. Like when I dream, neither my thoughts (thoughts of who I am in this life) nor my body in this life, is involved or present within my dreams (rarely is it actually my body and thoughts I am dreaming of). Yet I am observing or witnessing -gathering memories - of my dreaming mind/thoughts and body experiences in my dream. So what part of me is present in both my current life and in my dream life? Only the observer or witness aspect of my consciousness is the same in my current life as in my dream life. So I would like to think that when I move back into my life of the IBT I will have evolved thru the experiences I have experienced here. ->BBELLA: It's not the body of dhw that will be present in the IBT, it will be the conscious/witness/observer of dhw's life that will be present in the IBT. [...] The you that has observed and stored the memory of your life here is who will be leaving the body at death. Then you will journey thru the experience of re-membering your previous IBT life along with your new memories of the life of dhw stored in your memory bank, which could be recalled just like any memory. It would be the same or similar as you remembering the character you created's life, or me remembering a dream that I woke up from.->dhw: But... I am NOT the character I created, and you are NOT the other person you became in a dream -I gave these examples (the character you created and the person I am in my dreams) as a way to express how I would like to see the soul and the IBT. Of course, the character is not you, altho you created it, and my dreams aren't me, altho I created them. The lives we live here I would like to think of them as lives we consciously chose to fully experience (before we came here) and will one day, when we pass from this life, carry all of our new experiences we have gained, with us when we awaken into our new life - wherever that will be. -One thing we can both agree on, if we did awaken into another life, it won't be a continuation of this life since we will no longer be in the body we lived this life in and won't be here in this earthly plane of existence. Not to say, if we have it like we want it, we could recreate our body and a similar version of our life surroundings if we liked it so well...altho, given the choice, not seeing either of us choosing the same body. Maybe a newer, younger looking version? lol But in order to recreate the life here, we would have to bring everyone with us all at the same time. And we know that's not the way it works. But who's to say our friends and family will not all join us eventually anyway? Those we want around forever that is. ->BBELLA: ...You have only one soul. Whether it be the eternal soul that entered your body at birth and animated it into a life called dhw for which you have lived thru till you decide to leave the body of dhw and continue on your journey, or whether it be the only soul lived here as dhw. There is only one.->dhw: I think that sums up the problem I have here. Yes, if there is such a thing as a soul, there is only one, and I equate it with "my" identity, which IS current. It has to be the "me" that resides within my body and thinks dhw's thoughts. Not my arms, legs, or ... crucially ... my brain, but the ever learning (though alas all too frequently forgetting!), subtly changing "me" that gives orders to my brain. -I'm not seeing a real difference between us at this juncture. I am in agreement with what you say above as this is what the soul does. We cannot think a thought, have an identity or gives orders to the brain/body without the soul giving us life. ->dhw: You go on to say: "The soul is what animates the body and gives it life - consciousness and subconsciousness, and the soul is what leaves the body when it's time to move on." That I understand perfectly. The difference between us is that I see it as my current (and maybe future) ever-developing self, whereas your version makes it into an unchanging observer that is simply occupying my body now (and has occupied other people's), and eventually will move on, with "me" as just a memory.-In the paragraph above I see no difference in what we are both saying that a soul is, other than this maybe: My version of the soul already had existence before it entered the body and yours began when it entered the body. I, as you, think of the soul as ever learning by memories gained thru experience. I do see the soul changing and evolving, not like a body changes, but I do see it evolving in the sense of gaining memories thru experience.
Afterlife
by BBella , Sunday, February 03, 2013, 08:03 (4094 days ago) @ BBella
An interesting collection of NDE information:-http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html
Afterlife
by David Turell , Sunday, February 03, 2013, 16:02 (4093 days ago) @ BBella
An interesting collection of NDE information: > > http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html-Thank you.Great website containing a great deal of material I've seen and much hadn't.
Afterlife
by David Turell , Sunday, February 03, 2013, 15:57 (4093 days ago) @ BBella
b bella: In the paragraph above I see no difference in what we are both saying that a soul is, other than this maybe: My version of the soul already had existence before it entered the body and yours began when it entered the body. I, as you, think of the soul as ever learning by memories gained thru experience. I do see the soul changing and evolving, not like a body changes, but I do see it evolving in the sense of gaining memories thru experience.-Aren't both of you saying consciousness is the soul?
Afterlife
by BBella , Sunday, February 03, 2013, 20:46 (4093 days ago) @ David Turell
b bella: In the paragraph above I see no difference in what we are both saying that a soul is, other than this maybe: My version of the soul already had existence before it entered the body and yours began when it entered the body. I, as you, think of the soul as ever learning by memories gained thru experience. I do see the soul changing and evolving, not like a body changes, but I do see it evolving in the sense of gaining memories thru experience. > > Aren't both of you saying consciousness is the soul?-David, -Yes (IMO "evolving" imaginings), in the sense that without consciousness there is no soul. But the "soul" (for lack of a better term at this point), in my thinking, is a more evolved form of consciousness in that it retains it's memories/experiences within "one" conscious entity (identity) and can choose experiences (one experience is to become an entity/identity within matter) and a soul entity doesn't have to end unless it chooses to end (unlike animals), and at that point, can dissolve it's soul entity status, releasing it's memories into the All That Is (where those memories can then be accessed by other evolved "entities" for whatever purpose. I've experienced being in the "hall of records" where memories are kept in my dreams (and wrote a poem about it), and found out later that term has been used in philosophy and spiritual realms for thousands of years as the place where memories are kept in the afterlife.
Afterlife
by David Turell , Sunday, February 03, 2013, 22:29 (4093 days ago) @ BBella
b bella: Yes (IMO "evolving" imaginings), in the sense that without consciousness there is no soul. But the "soul" (for lack of a better term at this point), in my thinking, is a more evolved form of consciousness in that it retains it's memories/experiences within "one" conscious entity....... I've experienced being in the "hall of records" where memories are kept in my dreams (and wrote a poem about it), and found out later that term has been used in philosophy and spiritual realms for thousands of years as the place where memories are kept in the afterlife.-Your concept is well beyond what I have thought, but I have assumed that something like you are describing is what happens. It is like Edgar Cayce's book of records that he could access:-http://www.edgarcayce.org/are/spiritualGrowth.aspx?id=2078-Perhaps you have some of his clairvoyance.
Afterlife
BBella's ideal form of afterlife has got me confused, and the problem hinges on what constitutes our identity. It's a very complex subject, and perhaps we're simply going round in circles. Again I shall cherrypick quotes to try and pinpoint my difficulties, but it may well be that your experiences are so very different from mine (e.g. I never dream that I am someone else) that what you see as a desirable identity really is beyond the range of my imagination. In your previous post you wrote: "The body in which your consciousness resides is what changes over the years, but the conscious/observer/witness of those changes does not itself change." In your latest post to me, though, you write: "I, as you, think of the soul as ever learning by memories gained thru experience. I do see the soul changing and evolving, not like a body changes, but I do see it evolving in the sense of gaining memories thru experience."-I think this latest statement brings us closer together. However, you edited one of my replies as follows: dhw: "But... I am NOT the character I created, and you are NOT the other person you became in a dream", to which you replied: "I gave these examples (the character you created and the person I am in my dreams) as a way to express how I would like to see the soul and the IBT. Of course, the character is not you, altho you created it, and my dreams aren't me, altho I created them."-Unfortunately, that misses my point, which was that the soul in the IBT will not be dhw ... it will be the observer that preceded dhw, entered dhw, and will live on after dhw. I wrote "just as I am NOT the character[/i]..." ... i.e. the parallel is between me inventing but not being the invention, and the observer observing but not being the thing observed. According to you, dhw is the thing observed, and so the observer is not dhw. Therefore the soul which you acknowledge changes and evolves is not MY soul, but the soul of the observer, which leaves "me" behind when I die.-BBELLA: Only the observer or witness aspect of my consciousness is the same in my current life as in my dream life.-But it is not your dream life that makes up the bulk of your soul/identity in your current life. What I see as the soul is that part of you that is now thinking, feeling, taking decisions, remembering, inventing, reasoning etc. as well as observing (= self-awareness). And that is what evolves through experience. You seem to be saying that the only survivor from physical death will be the level of consciousness that has observed you thinking, feeling etc. It doesn't think, feel etc. as you do. The only activities it is capable of are observing and remembering, and that detaches it from the person it remembers, i.e. my person.-BBELLA: We cannot think a thought, have an identity or give orders to the brain/body without the soul giving us life. -Again your soul seems to be neutral. No, we can't do these things without being alive, but I'm suggesting that the soul is more than the breath of life: it IS the character/mind/identity, the thoughts, emotions, reasonings. (I mean, that's how I interpret it, and that's why I can't link up with your ideal.)-BBELLA: One thing we can both agree on, if we did awaken into another life, it won't be a continuation of this life since we will no longer be in the body we lived this life in and won't be here in this earthly plane of existence.-Definitely agreed. Our difference lies in what it is that moves into the other life if there is one! "Awaken" suggests from a dream, but what I would envisage is the SAME soul (dhw) moving onto a different plane of existence, not a soul that remembers dhw plus all its other identities as if each one of them had been a dream.-Apologies again for what may seem to you to be my blinkered vision! ****-Many thanks for that excellent NDE article.
Afterlife
by BBella , Wednesday, February 06, 2013, 07:36 (4091 days ago) @ dhw
Maybe we've reached an impasse, maybe not. We were closer in an earlier discussion (copied below) so maybe we can start again from there, or at least keep it in mind.->dhw: The second possible avenue is creative work. I think most artists and writers would agree that their prime source is the subconscious. I can "become" someone different from myself, and yet feel his/her reality so strongly that others may wonder how I can sense and convey that character's thoughts. A sensitive reader will have the same experience as they "identify" with a character. However, I remain myself, dhw, throughout the process, and so does the reader. This is not a new identity, but an ability to temporarily split the identity into real and imaginary selves (a process also vital to empathy). You say: "the subconscious is the go between of the soul identity and earth identity thru which we can be guided in our material life", which could suggest that my subconscious is actually reproducing past events or identities I don't remember. It does make sense, though I have to say it's anything but an ideal scenario for me! With those words in mind maybe we can edge closer...->dhw: In your previous post you wrote: "The body in which your consciousness resides is what changes over the years, but the conscious/observer/witness of those changes does not itself change." In your latest post to me, though, you write: "I, as you, think of the soul as ever learning by memories gained thru experience. I do see the soul changing and evolving, not like a body changes, but I do see it evolving in the sense of gaining memories thru experience."-In the first quote above I was trying to express how I see the immutability of a self aware conscious soul as "one" unchanging conscious regardless of it's changing experiences (even when it splits it consciousness to experience a brand new experience with no memory of a past or aware of it's subconscious knowledge). In the second quote I am referring to the ability of this same one soul conscious to gather information and learn from it's experiences (whatever they may be).->dhw: What I see as the soul is that part of you that is now thinking, feeling, taking decisions, remembering, inventing, reasoning etc. as well as observing (= self-awareness). And that is what evolves through experience. -I agree. All of those different aspects are me and is my soul. But there is an aspect of my soul that I know absolutely nothing about; my subconscious. And even tho "my" subconscious is me and not someone else, it holds knowledge that is cordoned off from the knowing, feeling, remembering, etc conscious side of me. Why? I believe it's because this aspect of my soul, that I am not privy to, is the part of me that holds the knowledge of my past of before I got here, info I need while I am here, and the knowing how to get home when I leave. It's like an invisible backseat driver that whispers in my ear to tell me the road I am going down is not the road I need to be taking. ->dhw: You seem to be saying that the only survivor from physical death will be the level of consciousness that has observed you thinking, feeling etc. It doesn't think, feel etc. as you do. The only activities it is capable of are observing and remembering, and that detaches it from the person it remembers, i.e. my person.-I'm not sure if that is what I am saying. Let me give an example - let's say I am experiencing death right now (and according to most NDE's) I see my body lying on the bed as I float away from it. I know I am that person lying there, but seeing my body there lets my conscious mind know that I am no longer my body even tho I still feel fully me as if I am still in my body, but I am clearly not. So I leave my body and my home here and now head quickly away somewhere (altho I no not where) yet I feel assured and trust, knowing all is well. And tho I am heading away from my body, my home and my life on earth, I am now more excited about where I am heading than concerned about what I am leaving. ~ I would say, if this was the scenario, the reason I feel assured about where I am heading, is because the subconscious aspect of my soul has now taken over my conscious mind and is guiding me back to the IBT.->BBELLA: We cannot think a thought, have an identity or give orders to the brain/body without the soul giving us life.->dhw: Again your soul seems to be neutral. No, we can't do these things without being alive, but I'm suggesting that the soul is more than the breath of life: it IS the character/mind/identity, the thoughts, emotions, reasonings. -I agree! The soul is definitely not neutral, and I'd like to believe it is even more than our breath and those things you mention above as well as more than this body and this life. -continued...
Afterlife
by BBella , Wednesday, February 06, 2013, 07:37 (4091 days ago) @ dhw
continued...-> BBELLA: One thing we can both agree on, if we did awaken into another life, it won't be a continuation of this life since we will no longer be in the body we lived this life in and won't be here in this earthly plane of existence. > >dhw: Definitely agreed. Our difference lies in what it is that moves into the other life if there is one! "Awaken" suggests from a dream, but what I would envisage is the SAME soul (dhw) moving onto a different plane of existence, not a soul that remembers dhw plus all its other identities as if each one of them had been a dream.-I see where you are coming from and I see that, in some sense, it is exactly what I said it wasn't, "a continuation". And I agree and think you are right that the experience (of dying) would be more like what you envisage, "the same soul moving onto a different plane of existence" and less like awakening from a dream. We are now (I hope) in disagreement about "what it is that moves into the other life" as by my example of the dying experience earlier has shown; it would be my soul consciousness of this life that would be aware of moving onto the next plane of existence (altho I believe it would be my subconscious directing me at this point). So maybe now, our only difference dwells within your next sentence - "not a soul that remembers dhw plus all its other identities as if each one of them had been a dream." -Now comes the part where we probably will part in what you envisage and what I would like to think happens. Maybe it is only because you do not like the idea of a soul having past lives and I do? So taking up where I left off in my dying example ~ at some point, when I finally reach my destination after leaving my body, and after a time where I am welcomed by a passed loved one (like in most NDE's) and brought up to speed, I would like to think I would slowly begin to re-connect/re-member my life within the IBT and any past lives I may have had. Whether that happens and whether I will experience a time of re-membering past lives or not, only my subconscious knows for sure. > Apologies again for what may seem to you to be my blinkered vision! -No apologies needed, now or in the next life! > Many thanks for that excellent NDE article.-You're welcome! I hope to take time to do more exploring there!
Afterlife
BBella and I are discussing her ideal form of afterlife, the nature of the soul (if it exists) and of identity.-Your latest posts have made the whole scenario much, much clearer for me ... and possibly for you too?! For the sake of brevity, I shan't reproduce all that you wrote, but will try to summarize it, and then you can correct me if I've got it wrong.-The soul is that part of us that consciously thinks, feels, invents etc., but it is also the subconscious, which contains experiences from our past as well as our present lives, and these have helped to shape our current identity. When we die, it is this same soul that moves onto a different plane of existence, but the subconscious becomes part of our consciousness, and we remember our past identities. It may even be that we link up with people from our past lives, and ideally we may also be able to choose to live again on earth, taking on a new identity incorporating our earlier identities within the subconscious. Or we may have all kinds of new experiences in the non-physical domain.-If I've got this right, it's certainly a much more coherent concept of identity than we had before, and your view of the subconscious could explain your unusual (by my standards) dreams and some of my own fictional fantasies, not to mention all kinds of seemingly irrational thoughts and feelings and phobias that so many people have. You think there may be a difference between us, because I "do not like the idea of a soul having past lives". I certainly didn't like the idea of my having suffered what some of my fictional characters have suffered! And I did have difficulty understanding the nature of identity if all that remained of dhw were the memories of a detached observer. But what you have now described seems far more feasible to me, especially with your concession on continuity.-I'd be interested in how your ideal version would tackle the question of choice. Again with my limited vision, I can't imagine that a past me chose to be the present me. That almost smacks of predestination. Wouldn't there have to be a degree of unpredictability involved? -Your linking of the subconscious with past lives sets me off at a tangent, but it's an idea that I find intriguing. In the highly revealing article David referred us to concerning the complexity of life, the author said that one gram of DNA contains enough information to fill 100 billion DVDs. Could it be that your past lives and subconscious memories are in fact the lives and memories of your ancestors, passed down genetically through the generations? In much the same way, the intelligent corvids and other highly intelligent birds, animals, insects "inherit" information which their current selves then apply according to their own degrees of consciousness. -I'm not saying this gets rid of the soul, because it doesn't offer an explanation of consciousness itself. The argument has to go the other way: IF consciousness were indeed the product of our material selves (a big IF), this would offer us a coherent alternative to your past lives scenario: the subconscious would be the memories of earlier generations locked in the genes. But I'm just thinking aloud...-As for the ideal afterlife, which is our starting point, yes I can see the attractions of your vision. Heaven alone knows how it would all work ... if there's a heaven in the first (second?) place! ... but then we don't even know how this life works, do we?
Afterlife
by David Turell , Thursday, February 07, 2013, 14:57 (4089 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I'm not saying this gets rid of the soul, because it doesn't offer an explanation of consciousness itself.- > dhw: As for the ideal afterlife, which is our starting point, yes I can see the attractions of your vision. Heaven alone knows how it would all work ... if there's a heaven in the first (second?) place! ... but then we don't even know how this life works, do we?- Great observations! No, we cannot explain consciousness using reductive materialism. And Nagel sees the problem but has no answers, and Darwinists don't see the problem at all. -http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/pummeled_with_p068931.html-But if you follow all the info I'm sending here about the way cells work we are learning how life works and it is so complex it had help in evolving. No chance for chance.
Afterlife
by BBella , Thursday, February 07, 2013, 22:08 (4089 days ago) @ dhw
BBella and I are discussing her ideal form of afterlife, the nature of the soul (if it exists) and of identity...For the sake of brevity, I shan't reproduce all that you wrote, but will try to summarize it, and then you can correct me if I've got it wrong.-So far so good!-> I'd be interested in how your ideal version would tackle the question of choice. Again with my limited vision, I can't imagine that a past me chose to be the present me. That almost smacks of predestination. Wouldn't there have to be a degree of unpredictability involved? -Yes, no doubt, there would have to be unpredictability as that would be one of the main perks for coming here! But would also be why we don't leave home (IBT) without our trusty subconscious at our side (our Tonto to our Lone Ranger). -On choice: I've imagined that the IBT is a place of being, full of wonderful, exciting, everlasting choices. One reason I call it the IBT is because it's our home base in-between each experience. Earth is only one choice of many places to experience. With every place we choose to visit they could have different ways to experience them. -So, being within the warm womb of the light of the knowing-nest and total predictability of the IBT (not to say it's a stagnate state of being since a soul is ever learning and growing in knowingness if it chooses, as we've established), a soul might choose an Earthly experience of forgetfulness and the surprise element of not knowing what's around the next corner. And let's not forget, Earths limited 5 senses rule could provide a kind of carrot of sorts to woo a soul back into such a place of limited choice that only heightens those five senses - in oh so many ways! And also, there's the choice to collaborate with another soul in the IBT that might want the help of another friend soul to gain a certain experience or help evolve a family tree here on earth. Or, we could just choose a mission to provide a pocket of balanced energy as Earth evolves thru difficult times. The choices for why to choose earth in particular seems endless to me. -A dream I've had a number of times since my OBE (the dream is experienced differently each time but has the same moral), is that I am in the IBT at a wonderful celebration of sorts with "friend" (for lack of a better word) souls. We have a beautiful feast laid out before us and I fill my plate with differing pieces of this and that, it all looks so heavenly yummy! But as I taste each one, they all taste the same with only slight varying degrees of a bland difference. I remark that I sure miss the tastes of earth, in a similar tone or feeling as I would have here, like missing a special time at a vacation spot. So in the IBT of these dreams, I always remember the sense of taste I had while on Earth with fond memories - knowing this sense particular sense is only heightened within our limited earthly experience. Once, in one of the dreams, someone said to me, "I'm ready if you're ready to go back!" and I said, "No thanks!" So, I have imagined, that in the IBT, eating food is not something you do there on any kind of regular basis and is experienced differently than here when you choose to do it for whatever reason. I could see how creating Earth with the five sense rule would lure souls here and out of their eternal nest. continued...
Afterlife
by BBella , Thursday, February 07, 2013, 22:22 (4089 days ago) @ dhw
Continued...-On DNA memory:-> Your linking of the subconscious with past lives sets me off at a tangent, but it's an idea that I find intriguing. In the highly revealing article David referred us to concerning the complexity of life, the author said that one gram of DNA contains enough information to fill 100 billion DVDs. Could it be that your past lives and subconscious memories are in fact the lives and memories of your ancestors, passed down genetically through the generations? In much the same way, the intelligent corvids and other highly intelligent birds, animals, insects "inherit" information which their current selves then apply according to their own degrees of consciousness.-The inherited memory of our ancestors within our DNA theory has always been on the back burner of my mind but was not brought to the forefront until after my OBE. I even have a poem or two written with that very idea in mind. When I was maybe from the ages of 5-8 years old I, I remember asking my mother why I remembered being old, and another time, why I remembered being a boy (other times something/someone different). She would say to me when I would say ask these things (usually after dressing up as whatever I remembered), you are just remembering your genes. So that theory is not new to me, but again, I never really thought about it until after my OBE. Since then, my own kids will hear me say now and then in response to something that brings up the subject, "...that is if there is such a thing as past lives or maybe you are just remembering your genes." And I might add, "or both". Just as an aside, even though I was raised in a Christian home (only in the sense of being taken to church), my mom has always had an independent mind that does not conform to any one belief. I now see her as purely agnostic even tho she has no idea what that means. But I never noticed or even talked to her about these things until after my OBE. > I'm not saying this gets rid of the soul, because it doesn't offer an explanation of consciousness itself. The argument has to go the other way: IF consciousness were indeed the product of our material selves (a big IF), this would offer us a coherent alternative to your past lives scenario: the subconscious would be the memories of earlier generations locked in the genes. But I'm just thinking aloud...-I've also heard it said that souls tend to reincarnate down thru families (idk). The DNA memory could easily be the reason it seems that way, or it may very well be that souls favor families because they are ancestors to themselves in a sense (if they have incarnated as an earlier ancestor). They might do this to choose to direct their family tree of evolution toward a more balanced and civilized tree. > As for the ideal afterlife, which is our starting point, yes I can see the attractions of your vision. Heaven alone knows how it would all work ... if there's a heaven in the first (second?) place! ... but then we don't even know how this life works, do we?-True. And might very well be why we keep coming back. Who wants to be a know it all for all eternity raise your hand! lol
Afterlife
by David Turell , Friday, February 08, 2013, 01:00 (4089 days ago) @ BBella
bbella: The inherited memory of our ancestors within our DNA theory has always been on the back burner of my mind but was not brought to the forefront until after my OBE. -I don't remember your OBE mentioned before, only a non-specific illness. Have you described it before, or if not, do you wish too describe it now?. I've read so many and heard a few, but I would love to read your description of yours.
Afterlife
by BBella , Friday, February 08, 2013, 06:07 (4089 days ago) @ David Turell
bbella: The inherited memory of our ancestors within our DNA theory has always been on the back burner of my mind but was not brought to the forefront until after my OBE.->I don't remember your OBE mentioned before, only a non-specific illness. Have you described it before, or if not, do you wish too describe it now?. I've read so many and heard a few, but I would love to read your description of yours.-It was not that long after I first showed up here that I told about it on a thread I will have to search for. Not sure what subject it was under. I called it an NDE and you corrected me and said it sounded more like an OBE. I think I called it an NDE because I was trying to die at the time because of my illness.-Earlier you wrote in response to the hall of records memories of my dreams:->Your concept is well beyond what I have thought, but I have assumed that something like you are describing is what happens. It is like Edgar Cayce's book of records that he could access:->http://www.edgarcayce.org/are/spiritualGrowth.aspx?id=2078->Perhaps you have some of his clairvoyance.-I had a chance to check out the Edgar Cayce site...it's very interesting. I've known of him for a long time and did see a program about his life and abilities. I definitely don't think I have anything similar to his abilities, but I think when any human has been pushed to that space between life and death, for whatever reason and even if only for a few moments in time or even a few seconds in time (like with electrocution, etc), they experience afterward what for many is like a mind and/or dream expansion and their minds and/or dreams become opened to possibilities not imagined before.
Afterlife
BBella and I have finally reached agreement on the identity of the soul (if there is one) which might move into an afterlife (if there is one).-Your posts are fascinating, as are your experiences. I remember you telling us about your OBE/NDE, but I've looked for it and can't find it. (I guess it would have been about four years ago.) Were you on a beach? I'm afraid what I remember most vividly of all is the fact that you had mentioned having had strange experiences, and I hesitated long and hard before asking you to give us an account, for fear of seeming to pry! I'm very glad I did, but perhaps you could refresh our memories. -I can't disagree with the options you would like left open to you in your IBT. All very attractive. Whether the subconscious is as trusty as Tonto, though, I don't know. It's the storehouse of nightmares as well as dreams, traumas as well as wisdom.-Interesting that you've also considered the DNA theory. It has a pleasing logic.-I once used the hall of records (it was a kind of library) as a theatre image that began gently and finished frighteningly. I don't like it. My ideal afterlife would allow for the obliteration of nasty things, and for absolutely no figure of authority exercising permanent surveillance! You have mentioned "friend souls", but that could pose a problem too. Supposing X wants to be your friend, but you don't want to be his? (You can see that I still expect some problems up there!)-Anyway, if we do all go to your IBT, perhaps we can arrange a party at the ex-Agnostics Club. I am notorious for losing my way, however, so I shall rely on you as the most experienced of us to give me precise directions.
Afterlife: OBE found
by David Turell , Saturday, February 09, 2013, 01:18 (4088 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:Your posts are fascinating, as are your experiences. I remember you telling us about your OBE/NDE, but I've looked for it and can't find it. (I guess it would have been about four years ago.) Were you on a beach? I'm afraid what I remember most vividly of all is the fact that you had mentioned having had strange experiences, and I hesitated long and hard before asking you to give us an account, for fear of seeming to pry! I'm very glad I did, but perhaps you could refresh our memories.-Here is bbella's OBE/ meditiation episode from 2008. I remembered we discussed what to label it:-> >David: Ever since a dozen or so of my patients described NDE's and OOB's to me I've been fascinated by the phenomenon, and the ultra-awareness that occurs afterward. I hope that you will be willing to describe your experience to us, the actual events in the NDE. > > bbella: I'm still not exactly sure what the experience could be called, but probably an OBE (Out of Body Experience). I had become very ill and was confined to bed for all of the late 90's (about 5 yrs). I was in an inflammatory state of Rheumatoid and Psoriatic Arthritis. Nothing I did medically or naturally seemed to be able to cut thru the pain to give me any relief. I decided I could take the suffering no more and began to will myself to die. I wouldn't eat or drink I told myself and I would just go into myself and find that door to death and open it and walk thru it. Simple as that! I began by imagining myself on the otherside of death and cremation. I imagined I could see my family walk to the bridge where I had asked my family to throw my ashes into the rushing river below. I imagined myself becoming one with the flowing river rushing toward the sea I had so loved to visit but hadn't been able since my pain had become so severe. I could feel the joy of the flow and felt truly happy for the first time in so long, until the waves of the sea began to push be back onto the shore. I at first felt disappointment but then watched as my ashes began to form a new body from the golden sand on the beach. My body sparkled as the sun reflected the golden sand I was made of. I was really shining brightly!!! At that very moment one of my children entered the room and brought me abruptly out of my peaceful state. > > The first thing I noticed was that my body was no longer in pain! I got up and walked around effortlessly and felt like something very extraordinary had happened to me that I couldn't explain right at that moment to my daughter as I didn't really understand just what or how it happened. At that moment we both felt a miracle had happened...like one of those things you read about but find hard to believe. Eventually, after several days passed, I did begin to feel the pain start to creep back in...but, it never returned to the level of pain as it was before the OBE, or whatever it was. > > Nevertheless, it dawned on me that that I had within my own mind an untapped resource which had brought hope and excitement back into my life. My passion for living was renewed as I felt a whole new world had opened up for me to explore....the unknown world within me. Before this, nothing outside me had even brought a moments relief of pain, except for sleep. Yet, within my own mind, I found what nothing else could give me...relief, hope and an endless space to explore possibilities. Also, I began to feel and experience the world around me in a totally different way. I became more sensitive to sound and almost felt as if I never really heard or felt the world around me before. My mind may have been so loud before that my senses to the world around had become numbed. As I explored my mind I felt my body slowly begin to awaken and I began to notice how everything that happened around me effected me physically as well as emotionally. Eventually I found a link between my reactive emotional state and my physical pain.
Afterlife: OBE found
David has found and reproduced BBella's OBE. Thank you, David, and thank you, BBella. (So much for my vivid memory ... but perhaps I hesitated to ask about other personal matters. At least I remembered the beach!) Like so many of your experiences, BBella, it's intriguing and touching, and you continue to open up new avenues of exploration for all of us.-I have one very prosaic question, which I know you will forgive me for. You mentioned your decision not to eat or drink, and I'm wondering if you actually put that into practice for any length of time before your OBE. I ask because of the theoretical link between arthritis and diet, and the general principle behind detoxification ... not, I hasten to add, just in relation to drugs or alcohol, but to ridding the body of any substance that might be harmful to it. There are lots of "health farms" in the UK that charge large fees for starving their clients, so even if it's not relevant here, it would be interesting to know David's views on the subject.
Afterlife: OBE found
by David Turell , Saturday, February 09, 2013, 15:00 (4087 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Saturday, February 09, 2013, 15:11
> dhw:I have one very prosaic question, which I know you will forgive me for. You mentioned your decision not to eat or drink, and I'm wondering if you actually put that into practice for any length of time before your OBE. I ask because of the theoretical link between arthritis and diet, and the general principle behind detoxification ... not, I hasten to add, just in relation to drugs or alcohol, but to ridding the body of any substance that might be harmful to it. There are lots of "health farms" in the UK that charge large fees for starving their clients, so even if it's not relevant here, it would be interesting to know David's views on the subject.-As a lifetime dieter I know that weight loss is a simple equation of calories. Most folks are too lazy to study that simplicity much, and don't like to admit it, so we have 'fat farms'. The TV program Biggest Loser adequately makes the point. Detoxification claims are garbage claims. Unless the person is using toxic materials to excess. Rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis, bbella's illness are autoimminue and certainly some of the over-reactive immune system might be fueled by food allergies, but that were truly the case, I would think Rh. arthritis would be more common than 0.5% of the US population:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130208124741.htm
Afterlife: OBE found
by BBella , Monday, February 11, 2013, 07:21 (4086 days ago) @ dhw
David has found and reproduced BBella's OBE. Thank you, David, and thank you, BBella. (So much for my vivid memory ... but perhaps I hesitated to ask about other personal matters. At least I remembered the beach!) Like so many of your experiences, BBella, it's intriguing and touching, and you continue to open up new avenues of exploration for all of us. > > I have one very prosaic question, which I know you will forgive me for. You mentioned your decision not to eat or drink, and I'm wondering if you actually put that into practice for any length of time before your OBE. I ask because of the theoretical link between arthritis and diet, and the general principle behind detoxification ... not, I hasten to add, just in relation to drugs or alcohol, but to ridding the body of any substance that might be harmful to it. There are lots of "health farms" in the UK that charge large fees for starving their clients, so even if it's not relevant here, it would be interesting to know David's views on the subject.-No, dhw, this all happened in one afternoon, my decision to die. Just to elaborate, I had been in extreme pain for months (mostly bedridden for 5 years) but the last few days before this had become too overwhelming for me. The decision to not eat or drink was made that day and the experience I had was just a short time later. So no real time had gone by without eating and/or drinking (altho I had fasted, detoxed, became vegan spent much on any and every type of cure way before this day. My doctors had also put me on many different meds, and as I said before, even tried pot for a bit - all to no avail - altho the marijuana did help me more than anything else, I was able to move with less pain, but I was so sensitive to it's side effects and they became overwhelming for me and my family - could really tell some tales about that! And I would like to say, if marijuana did get into the right hands and developed correctly, it could be a great remedy for a lot of ailments). But moving on, I had always tried very hard to be upbeat and hopeful that we might find a solution for my situation, and I had never been a depressive type person and never once considered suicide in my life. A few months before this day I had watched a program about Tibetan Monks (I think), how when they were ready to leave this world they would just sit and zone into themselves and leave, pass from this life to the next! Sometimes it would take days, weeks and maybe even longer for them to pass. They would just sit undisturbed with their eyes closed never moving a muscle until they found the door. Of course my (not well thought out) plan was to leave that day - no sitting around for days, etc but whatever it took, I had hoped to die that day, but even if I had to starve and however long it was going to take, I had made my resolve. No muss, no fuss. What I hadn't expected was the relief of pain I had afterward when suddenly brought to myself by one of my children. And as I said, my pain level was less and never returned to be where I was completely frozen and immobile as before this event. -What I think I mentioned at some point around this discussion of my OBE before, is because of my religious beliefs, I had always avoided meditation or any study of the mind other than psychology since I was a Christian counselor. But after this event, I had a new mission in life, which was to go inward and explore my own new found mental capacity knowing there was an untapped power within me. What I did for myself in just an hour or so of meditation (OBE or whatever) did more for me than everything I had known before, or really, since. -After this event, I did find a doctor who put me on the new biologic meds at that time and am still on them off and on, altho the pain part of my illness has went into remission - even when I am off the meds for long lengths of time it has not come back. My doctor claims that is highly unusual. I allow myself a holistic view of healing: mental, physical and spiritual. The spiritual being the chakra system/etc - which I first learned thru a dream (in which I experienced kundulini) and then found out more about it as I opened my mind to accept guidance thru what I had mentioned earlier in our discussions quite a while back - sychronicity and the guidance of the universal intelligence. -I'm sure this is much more than what you were asking about...so I will stop here.
Afterlife: OBE found
BBella has given us more details about her OBE and the effect it has had on her thinking.-Once again, thank you very much for all these experiences and insights. As I mentioned earlier, what is so impressive (though also terrible) is the fact that you actually wanted to die, and so this healing experience was not in any way brought on by the mind wilfully influencing the body (as it may do in, say, faith healing). It's as if you linked up involuntarily with powerful forces within and outside yourself.-BBELLA: After this event, I did find a doctor who put me on the new biologic meds at that time and am still on them off and on, altho the pain part of my illness has went into remission - even when I am off the meds for long lengths of time it has not come back. My doctor claims that is highly unusual. I allow myself a holistic view of healing: mental, physical and spiritual. The spiritual being the chakra system/etc - which I first learned thru a dream (in which I experienced kundulini) and then found out more about it as I opened my mind to accept guidance thru what I had mentioned earlier in our discussions quite a while back - sychronicity and the guidance of the universal intelligence. I had to look up chakra and kundalini, but I suspect all these systems of meditation look to establish connections with the deepest layers of the self and/or with the unifying energies of the universe. It's a moot point whether this entails a lessening or a heightening of consciousness. BBELLA: I'm sure this is much more than what you were asking about...so I will stop here.-Thank you again for sharing all this with us, BBella, and feel free to carry on ... you need never stop on my account!
Afterlife: skeptical thought
by David Turell , Saturday, November 19, 2016, 19:40 (2708 days ago) @ dhw
A review by a skeptic:
https://aeon.co/essays/my-paranormal-adventure-in-pursuit-of-life-after-death?utm_sourc...
"I should confess that, unlike Stevenson, who made no secret of his lifelong belief in the supernatural, I’m a sceptic. In fact that’s probably putting it too mildly. In my book The Belief Instinct (2011), I reviewed scientific findings from my own research as well as that of my colleagues in the new field of the ‘cognitive science of religion’. I laid out a case for how the human mind evolved to deceive us into believing in a ‘demon-haunted world’, as Carl Sagan put it, because such supernatural beliefs were biologically adaptive — at least they were adaptive tens of thousands of years ago, when our mental abilities were carved out by the godless forces of natural selection. That said, I’d be happy to be proven wrong about the afterlife. As Stevenson once wrote: ‘The wish not to believe can influence as strongly as the wish to believe.’ Sometimes we sceptics are really just cynics.
***
"Given all the effort Stevenson had put into what he called the ‘combination lock test for survival’, it would be a pity not to try to contact his spirit. He had come up with the idea for the test in the late 1960s after reading about a British widow whose husband died without telling her the combination to a lockbox that held important documents. After many frustrating attempts to open it, the despairing widow said she heard her husband’s voice giving her the code. When she tried that set of numbers — voila! — the lockbox sprung open. Not exactly a bulletproof case, but it got Stevenson thinking.
***
"Ten days after he died in hospital on 8 February 2007, The New York Times ran his obituary, mentioning the lock test. Soon, emails, letters and phone calls besieged the Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS) at the University of Virginia, the still-active parapsychology unit founded by Stevenson. People from all over the world claimed his spirit had given them the secret code to his personal lock.
"‘None of them worked,’ Bruce Greyson, Stevenson’s friend and successor at DOPS, told me. ‘We tried them all. Most of the codes sounded nothing at all like Ian, but we tried them anyway.’ Greyson, a psychiatrist himself and an expert on near-death experiences, is the keeper of the locks, which today mostly collect cobwebs at the bottom of a drawer in his office.
***
"only one of the 10 projects to be funded deals directly with the juicy question Stevenson was so keen to answer: ‘Do we, or do we not, survive death?’
"That prize went to Sam Parnia, director of resuscitation research at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, who plans to determine whether near-death experiences are real. We’ve all heard of ‘NDEs’, in which someone who was ‘clinically dead’ reports becoming detached from his body and hovering outside it or travelling to an alternate reality, thus proving that ‘Heaven is real.’ ....The common denominator in all such explanations is that NDEs are ‘no more than’ vivid hallucinations of death-rattled brains. (my comment: Never hallucinations. Too organized)
***
"telecommunicating with pretty angels — the main ingredients in Eben Alexander’s best-seller Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Near-Death Experience and Journey Into the Afterlife (2012) — simply can’t answer our big question. All such experiences simply boil down to: ‘If you say so.’
***
"Still, around 10 per cent of people who survive cardiac arrest report watching the chaotic scene from a floating, third-person perspective while medical personnel work to revive their lifeless bodies. That’s not an insubstantial figure, so it warrants further study. There are also stories in which patients accurately recount an idiosyncratic event that occurred while they were ‘clinically dead’. In a paper for the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 1998, Greyson quoted the case of Al Sullivan, an emergency quadruple bypass patient in Connecticut who described his surgeon’s habit of putting his thumbs in his armpits after scrubbing up and pointing to the necessary surgical instruments with his elbows or ‘flapping his arms as if trying to fly’.
***
"In the end, I’m left where I started on my little paranormal adventure. I did manage to pry open my mind for a while, but what blew in was only some good intentions and a bunch of hot air. My bet remains that immortal souls — yours, mine, and Ian Stevenson’s — are but the elusive shadows dancing on the walls of our physical brains. That doesn’t make them any less interesting or important. Such slippery spirits have plenty of codes of their own to be deciphered by scientists."
Comment: A skeptic just like Blackmore. Not hallucinations. Bruce Greyson is discussed in my book.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 01:13 (1424 days ago) @ David Turell
Answered by Dennis Prager:
https://rightandfree.com/news/2020/05/25/the-lockdown-evangelicals-and-the-afterlife-a-...
"Harvard professor of psychology Steven Pinker tweeted last week:
"'Belief in an afterlife is a malignant delusion, since it devalues actual lives and discourages action that would make them longer, safer, and happier. Exhibit A: What's really behind Republicans wanting a swift reopening? Evangelicals."
Having praised Pinker, let me now respond to his tweet.
"First, "Belief in an afterlife is a malignant delusion ... "
"I am not a Christian, evangelical or otherwise. I am a religious Jew who has written and lectured extensively on the afterlife. My belief in the afterlife is based entirely on a logical argument: If there is a just God, it is axiomatic there is an afterlife. There is little justice and fairness in this life, so if there is a just God, there has to be an afterlife. There is only one honest atheist response to this: "There is no God, so there is no afterlife. But if there is a God, you are right that there must be an afterlife." (my bold)
"So, belief in an afterlife is no more a "delusion" than belief in God. But it takes an unsophisticated arrogance to dismiss belief that the world has a designer and that intelligence must be created by intelligence as a "delusion." I was disappointed in Pinker, who I respect for his courageous comments and with whom I have dialogued on my radio show. His tweet reveals a truly shallow atheism.
"In fact, I would argue that it is atheism that is a "malignant delusion."
"Regarding the delusion part, I asked one of America's leading thinkers of the last half-century, the late Charles Krauthammer, a secular agnostic, what he thought of atheism. To my surprise, he responded:
"'I believe atheism is the least plausible of all the theologies. It is clearly so contrary to what is possible. The idea that all this universe always existed, created itself? I mean, talk about the violation of human rationality."
"And as regards the "malignant" charge, while there are, obviously, good individuals who are atheist, atheism is morally worthless. It makes no moral demands, whereas Judaism and Christianity posit a God who demands people obey, for example, the Ten Commandments. Atheism demands nothing; it only destroys the Judeo-Christian bases of morality in Western civilization, the civilization that gave the world democracy, liberty, women's equality and an end to slavery.
***
"To Pinker and his colleagues, Patrick Henry's famous plea, "Give me liberty, or give me death," the foundational principle of our republic, must sound truly foolish. It must have been the product of a malignant delusion."
Comment: The bold which expresses Prager's point of view is fascinating. It would raise the issue of whether the struggle, which makes life challenging and certainly interesting, was purposely created that way. Without the struggle life would be monotonous and boring, not worth living in my view. Heaven as a reword for struggling is at a child's level of thought. I'm surprised at Prager.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
1st QUOTE: bbb“My belief in the afterlife is based entirely on a logical argument: If there is a just God, it is axiomatic there is an afterlife. There is little justice and fairness in this life, so if there is a just God, there has to be an afterlife. There is only one honest atheist response to this: "There is no God, so there is no afterlife. But if there is a God, you are right that there must be an afterlife."bbb
2nd QUOTE: "'I believe atheism is the least plausible of all the theologies. It is clearly so contrary to what is possible. The idea that all this universe always existed, created itself? I mean, talk about the violation of human rationality."
3RD QUOTE: "And as regards the "malignant" charge, while there are, obviously, good individuals who are atheist, atheism is morally worthless. It makes no moral demands, whereas Judaism and Christianity posit a God who demands people obey, for example, the Ten Commandments.
DAVID: The bold which expresses Prager's point of view is fascinating. It would raise the issue of whether the struggle, which makes life challenging and certainly interesting, was purposely created that way. Without the struggle life would be monotonous and boring, not worth living in my view. Heaven as a reword for struggling is at a child's level of thought.
A fascinating subject, but I find most of these arguments disturbingly silly.
1)The bold. He might just as well say: if there is a God, and if God wants us to have an afterlife, we shall have an afterlife. As regards justice, I hope he realizes that some folk believe in a heaven and a hell. One can also imagine a God who is only interested in what we all get up to in our earthly lives. Why is he bound to give us an afterlife?
2)Why is the idea that the universe “always existed, created itself” more irrational than the idea that a conscious mind capable of creating a universe “always existed” but was never created?
3)Atheism is nothing but a disbelief in God. It does not set out to be a moral code! If human society is to function smoothly, there have to be codes that work for the general benefit, and it is patently absurd to assume that in pre-Jewish and pre-Christian times, humans had no idea how to live together, or what was good and what was bad for the group. And let’s face it, all these religions with their moral codes have been responsible for a whole history of atrocities. Has anybody ever committed atrocities on such a scale in defence of atheism? His condescending reference to good atheist individuals is obnoxious.
I agree with David’s comment: regardless of whether you are a theist, an atheist or an agnostic, life would be dull without all its contrasts, good and bad.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 15:26 (1424 days ago) @ dhw
1st QUOTE: bbb“My belief in the afterlife is based entirely on a logical argument: If there is a just God, it is axiomatic there is an afterlife. There is little justice and fairness in this life, so if there is a just God, there has to be an afterlife. There is only one honest atheist response to this: "There is no God, so there is no afterlife. But if there is a God, you are right that there must be an afterlife."bbb
2nd QUOTE: "'I believe atheism is the least plausible of all the theologies. It is clearly so contrary to what is possible. The idea that all this universe always existed, created itself? I mean, talk about the violation of human rationality."
3RD QUOTE: "And as regards the "malignant" charge, while there are, obviously, good individuals who are atheist, atheism is morally worthless. It makes no moral demands, whereas Judaism and Christianity posit a God who demands people obey, for example, the Ten Commandments.
DAVID: The bold which expresses Prager's point of view is fascinating. It would raise the issue of whether the struggle, which makes life challenging and certainly interesting, was purposely created that way. Without the struggle life would be monotonous and boring, not worth living in my view. Heaven as a reword for struggling is at a child's level of thought.
dhw: A fascinating subject, but I find most of these arguments disturbingly silly.
1)The bold. He might just as well say: if there is a God, and if God wants us to have an afterlife, we shall have an afterlife. As regards justice, I hope he realizes that some folk believe in a heaven and a hell. One can also imagine a God who is only interested in what we all get up to in our earthly lives. Why is he bound to give us an afterlife?2)Why is the idea that the universe “always existed, created itself” more irrational than the idea that a conscious mind capable of creating a universe “always existed” but was never created?
3)Atheism is nothing but a disbelief in God. It does not set out to be a moral code! If human society is to function smoothly, there have to be codes that work for the general benefit, and it is patently absurd to assume that in pre-Jewish and pre-Christian times, humans had no idea how to live together, or what was good and what was bad for the group. And let’s face it, all these religions with their moral codes have been responsible for a whole history of atrocities. Has anybody ever committed atrocities on such a scale in defence of atheism? His condescending reference to good atheist individuals is obnoxious.
dhw: I agree with David’s comment: regardless of whether you are a theist, an atheist or an agnostic, life would be dull without all its contrasts, good and bad.
Thanks for your agreement, but I must disagree with your comment (2). Our universe definitely had a start. Therefore it is finite and definitely without a past. You can't avoid First Cause
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
2nd QUOTE: "'I believe atheism is the least plausible of all the theologies. It is clearly so contrary to what is possible. The idea that all this universe always existed, created itself? I mean, talk about the violation of human rationality."
dhw: Why is the idea that the universe “always existed, created itself” more irrational than the idea that a conscious mind capable of creating a universe “always existed” but was never created?
DAVID: I must disagree with your comment (2). Our universe definitely had a start. Therefore it is finite and definitely without a past. You can't avoid First Cause.
I have never avoided first cause. If the Big Bang happened (please remember that it is a theory, not a fact), of course it had a cause, and it is no more rational to say that the cause was a conscious mind that had always existed and was never created than to say that the cause was unconscious energy and matter that had always existed and was never created.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
by David Turell , Thursday, May 28, 2020, 14:55 (1423 days ago) @ dhw
2nd QUOTE: "'I believe atheism is the least plausible of all the theologies. It is clearly so contrary to what is possible. The idea that all this universe always existed, created itself? I mean, talk about the violation of human rationality."
dhw: Why is the idea that the universe “always existed, created itself” more irrational than the idea that a conscious mind capable of creating a universe “always existed” but was never created?
DAVID: I must disagree with your comment (2). Our universe definitely had a start. Therefore it is finite and definitely without a past. You can't avoid First Cause.
dhw: I have never avoided first cause. If the Big Bang happened (please remember that it is a theory, not a fact), of course it had a cause, and it is no more rational to say that the cause was a conscious mind that had always existed and was never created than to say that the cause was unconscious energy and matter that had always existed and was never created.
Note I didn't say 'Big Bang"! This iteration had a start, even with a Big Bounce scenario. Is it on solo drive or does it have a driver? And something from nothing is not possible, especially when the something is very complex in its organization (fine tuning).
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
DAVID: I must disagree with your comment (2). Our universe definitely had a start. Therefore it is finite and definitely without a past. You can't avoid First Cause.
dhw: I have never avoided first cause. If the Big Bang happened (please remember that it is a theory, not a fact), of course it had a cause, and it is no more rational to say that the cause was a conscious mind that had always existed and was never created than to say that the cause was unconscious energy and matter that had always existed and was never created.
DAVID: Note I didn't say 'Big Bang"! This iteration had a start, even with a Big Bounce scenario. Is it on solo drive or does it have a driver? And something from nothing is not possible, especially when the something is very complex in its organization (fine tuning).
It makes no difference what theory you adhere to in relation to the beginning of this universe – you are still confronted with the same choice: an eternal conscious mind without a source, or eternal energy and matter without a source. Are the 100-200 thousand million galaxies of the present universe and was the potentially infinite number of galaxies in possible past universes all fine tuned by your God, or did our galaxy just happen to strike lucky as a one-off in eternity? I don’t know. Do you?
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
by David Turell , Friday, May 29, 2020, 13:53 (1422 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I must disagree with your comment (2). Our universe definitely had a start. Therefore it is finite and definitely without a past. You can't avoid First Cause.
dhw: I have never avoided first cause. If the Big Bang happened (please remember that it is a theory, not a fact), of course it had a cause, and it is no more rational to say that the cause was a conscious mind that had always existed and was never created than to say that the cause was unconscious energy and matter that had always existed and was never created.
DAVID: Note I didn't say 'Big Bang"! This iteration had a start, even with a Big Bounce scenario. Is it on solo drive or does it have a driver? And something from nothing is not possible, especially when the something is very complex in its organization (fine tuning).
dhw: It makes no difference what theory you adhere to in relation to the beginning of this universe – you are still confronted with the same choice: an eternal conscious mind without a source, or eternal energy and matter without a source. Are the 100-200 thousand million galaxies of the present universe and was the potentially infinite number of galaxies in possible past universes all fine tuned by your God, or did our galaxy just happen to strike lucky as a one-off in eternity? I don’t know. Do you?
The whole scenario ends with human consciousness. From natural causes is preposterous. Luck is just luck. I know there must be an eternal mind. You might let that sink in a little deeper. The mind does not have to named at all to be logical.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
dhw: It makes no difference what theory you adhere to in relation to the beginning of this universe – you are still confronted with the same choice: an eternal conscious mind without a source, or eternal energy and matter without a source. Are the 100-200 thousand million galaxies of the present universe and was the potentially infinite number of galaxies in possible past universes all fine tuned by your God, or did our galaxy just happen to strike lucky as a one-off in eternity? I don’t know. Do you?
DAVID: The whole scenario ends with human consciousness. From natural causes is preposterous. Luck is just luck. I know there must be an eternal mind. You might let that sink in a little deeper. The mind does not have to named at all to be logical.
But according to you the whole scenario begins with consciousness, in the form of an eternal mind! It is just as preposterous to believe that an eternally conscious mind can simply have been there forever as to believe that a stroke of luck could have assembled matter into a form that would develop from single cell to multicellular and ultimately human consciousness, or to believe that all materials have a degree of consciousness (one form of panpsychism). Your logic is blinkered, and your “first cause” is no more logical and no more credible than the other two.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
by David Turell , Saturday, May 30, 2020, 19:50 (1420 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: It makes no difference what theory you adhere to in relation to the beginning of this universe – you are still confronted with the same choice: an eternal conscious mind without a source, or eternal energy and matter without a source. Are the 100-200 thousand million galaxies of the present universe and was the potentially infinite number of galaxies in possible past universes all fine tuned by your God, or did our galaxy just happen to strike lucky as a one-off in eternity? I don’t know. Do you?
DAVID: The whole scenario ends with human consciousness. From natural causes is preposterous. Luck is just luck. I know there must be an eternal mind. You might let that sink in a little deeper. The mind does not have to named at all to be logical.
dhw: But according to you the whole scenario begins with consciousness, in the form of an eternal mind! It is just as preposterous to believe that an eternally conscious mind can simply have been there forever as to believe that a stroke of luck could have assembled matter into a form that would develop from single cell to multicellular and ultimately human consciousness, or to believe that all materials have a degree of consciousness (one form of panpsychism). Your logic is blinkered, and your “first cause” is no more logical and no more credible than the other two.
So you believe there is no cause at all. Nothing was there and nothing forced nothing to finally create humans. Strange conclusion. If energy in initially existed, as stated before, there had to some sort of force to cause progression. Can't have one without the other.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
dhw: It makes no difference what theory you adhere to in relation to the beginning of this universe – you are still confronted with the same choice: an eternal conscious mind without a source, or eternal energy and matter without a source. Are the 100-200 thousand million galaxies of the present universe and was the potentially infinite number of galaxies in possible past universes all fine tuned by your God, or did our galaxy just happen to strike lucky as a one-off in eternity? I don’t know. Do you?
DAVID: The whole scenario ends with human consciousness. From natural causes is preposterous. Luck is just luck. I know there must be an eternal mind. You might let that sink in a little deeper. The mind does not have to named at all to be logical.
dhw: But according to you the whole scenario begins with consciousness, in the form of an eternal mind! It is just as preposterous to believe that an eternally conscious mind can simply have been there forever as to believe that a stroke of luck could have assembled matter into a form that would develop from single cell to multicellular and ultimately human consciousness, or to believe that all materials have a degree of consciousness (one form of panpsychism). Your logic is blinkered, and your “first cause” is no more logical and no more credible than the other two.
DAVID: So you believe there is no cause at all. Nothing was there and nothing forced nothing to finally create humans. Strange conclusion. If energy in initially existed, as stated before, there had to some sort of force to cause progression. Can't have one without the other.
You seem never to have grasped the fact that I am an agnostic. I have shown you three possible first causes, and I find all of them equally difficult to believe. And so I have no belief. I remain open-minded. Maybe there is a God. Maybe there isn’t. Maybe it has all come about through chance. Maybe it hasn’t. Maybe there is some form of consciousness in all matter. Maybe there isn’t. And this means I am wrong, because one or other of these first causes is correct (unless there’s another I can’t think of). But I’m also right, because two of them are incorrect. That, in a nutshell, is the agnostic’s situation.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
by David Turell , Sunday, May 31, 2020, 15:12 (1420 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: It makes no difference what theory you adhere to in relation to the beginning of this universe – you are still confronted with the same choice: an eternal conscious mind without a source, or eternal energy and matter without a source. Are the 100-200 thousand million galaxies of the present universe and was the potentially infinite number of galaxies in possible past universes all fine tuned by your God, or did our galaxy just happen to strike lucky as a one-off in eternity? I don’t know. Do you?
DAVID: The whole scenario ends with human consciousness. From natural causes is preposterous. Luck is just luck. I know there must be an eternal mind. You might let that sink in a little deeper. The mind does not have to named at all to be logical.
dhw: But according to you the whole scenario begins with consciousness, in the form of an eternal mind! It is just as preposterous to believe that an eternally conscious mind can simply have been there forever as to believe that a stroke of luck could have assembled matter into a form that would develop from single cell to multicellular and ultimately human consciousness, or to believe that all materials have a degree of consciousness (one form of panpsychism). Your logic is blinkered, and your “first cause” is no more logical and no more credible than the other two.
DAVID: So you believe there is no cause at all. Nothing was there and nothing forced nothing to finally create humans. Strange conclusion. If energy initially existed, as stated before, there had to some sort of force to cause progression. Can't have one without the other.
dhw: You seem never to have grasped the fact that I am an agnostic. I have shown you three possible first causes, and I find all of them equally difficult to believe. And so I have no belief. I remain open-minded. Maybe there is a God. Maybe there isn’t. Maybe it has all come about through chance. Maybe it hasn’t. Maybe there is some form of consciousness in all matter. Maybe there isn’t. And this means I am wrong, because one or other of these first causes is correct (unless there’s another I can’t think of). But I’m also right, because two of them are incorrect. That, in a nutshell, is the agnostic’s situation.
Interesting. I clearly recognize your agnosticism. I also recognized it is fixed in stone. I just raised specific points about the progression of events from whatever had to be first to now. All I got was a non-answer. Why did you start the website? How to be a better agnostic? Everything that comes into being has to have a cause. This universe had a beginning. It has a cause.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
DAVID: So you believe there is no cause at all. Nothing was there and nothing forced nothing to finally create humans. Strange conclusion. If energy initially existed, as stated before, there had to some sort of force to cause progression. Can't have one without the other.
dhw: You seem never to have grasped the fact that I am an agnostic. I have shown you three possible first causes, and I find all of them equally difficult to believe. And so I have no belief. I remain open-minded. Maybe there is a God. Maybe there isn’t. Maybe it has all come about through chance. Maybe it hasn’t. Maybe there is some form of consciousness in all matter. Maybe there isn’t. And this means I am wrong, because one or other of these first causes is correct (unless there’s another I can’t think of). But I’m also right, because two of them are incorrect. That, in a nutshell, is the agnostic’s situation.
DAVID: Interesting. I clearly recognize your agnosticism. I also recognized it is fixed in stone. I just raised specific points about the progression of events from whatever had to be first to now. All I got was a non-answer. Why did you start the website? How to be a better agnostic? Everything that comes into being has to have a cause. This universe had a beginning. It has a cause.
You wrote: “So you believe there is no cause at all” (now bolded). Of course I don’t. The answer you got was that I can think of three possible causes, but can’t believe in any of them. And I acknowledge that one of them must be right! I don’t know what other answer you expect.
Why did I start the website? Initially because I was so disturbed by the superficial level of thinking behind Dawkins’ The God Delusion and by the equally superficial responses from the religious community. All my life I’ve asked myself the questions you and I have been discussing for the last twelve and a half years, and I wrote the brief guide and then opened the website because I hoped to create a forum for a more balanced and informed discussion than the one that was going on at the time. I had no idea what it would develop into, and for years it was a very mixed bag – ranging from the “cranks” (though I hope I was never rude to them) to some positively brilliant minds, theistic, atheistic and agnostic. They all came and went, as I think is inevitable since most people just want to have their say, and there’s a limit to the number of times they want to say it. The site has only kept going because of your massive contribution in the form of your ongoing research into the latest developments in all related fields. This amazing breadth of knowledge was also encapsulated in your two books, which for me represented the best possible response to Dawkins: namely, a scientific response to his distorted interpretation of science. And for me, the greatest reward for starting the website has been to have you as my science teacher!
In answer to the actual question you have asked, no, I didn’t start it in order to become a better agnostic! I started it for precisely the reasons stated on the homepage: “The truth is out there somewhere, and by combining our discoveries, we may help one another to gain new insights. Will enlightenment emerge from the AgnosticWeb? Watch this space. Better still, fill it.” Has enlightenment emerged? No. Have I gained new insights? Emphatically yes. Plus the pleasure of a unique friendship with – of all people – a panentheist!
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
by David Turell , Monday, June 01, 2020, 16:23 (1418 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: So you believe there is no cause at all. Nothing was there and nothing forced nothing to finally create humans. Strange conclusion. If energy initially existed, as stated before, there had to some sort of force to cause progression. Can't have one without the other.
dhw: You seem never to have grasped the fact that I am an agnostic. I have shown you three possible first causes, and I find all of them equally difficult to believe. And so I have no belief. I remain open-minded. Maybe there is a God. Maybe there isn’t. Maybe it has all come about through chance. Maybe it hasn’t. Maybe there is some form of consciousness in all matter. Maybe there isn’t. And this means I am wrong, because one or other of these first causes is correct (unless there’s another I can’t think of). But I’m also right, because two of them are incorrect. That, in a nutshell, is the agnostic’s situation.
DAVID: Interesting. I clearly recognize your agnosticism. I also recognized it is fixed in stone. I just raised specific points about the progression of events from whatever had to be first to now. All I got was a non-answer. Why did you start the website? How to be a better agnostic? Everything that comes into being has to have a cause. This universe had a beginning. It has a cause.
dhw: You wrote: “So you believe there is no cause at all” (now bolded). Of course I don’t. The answer you got was that I can think of three possible causes, but can’t believe in any of them. And I acknowledge that one of them must be right! I don’t know what other answer you expect.
Why did I start the website? Initially because I was so disturbed by the superficial level of thinking behind Dawkins’ The God Delusion and by the equally superficial responses from the religious community. All my life I’ve asked myself the questions you and I have been discussing for the last twelve and a half years, and I wrote the brief guide and then opened the website because I hoped to create a forum for a more balanced and informed discussion than the one that was going on at the time. I had no idea what it would develop into, and for years it was a very mixed bag – ranging from the “cranks” (though I hope I was never rude to them) to some positively brilliant minds, theistic, atheistic and agnostic. They all came and went, as I think is inevitable since most people just want to have their say, and there’s a limit to the number of times they want to say it. The site has only kept going because of your massive contribution in the form of your ongoing research into the latest developments in all related fields. This amazing breadth of knowledge was also encapsulated in your two books, which for me represented the best possible response to Dawkins: namely, a scientific response to his distorted interpretation of science. And for me, the greatest reward for starting the website has been to have you as my science teacher!
In answer to the actual question you have asked, no, I didn’t start it in order to become a better agnostic! I started it for precisely the reasons stated on the homepage: “The truth is out there somewhere, and by combining our discoveries, we may help one another to gain new insights. Will enlightenment emerge from the AgnosticWeb? Watch this space. Better still, fill it.” Has enlightenment emerged? No. Have I gained new insights? Emphatically yes. Plus the pleasure of a unique friendship with – of all people – a panentheist!
Thus you maintain your non-belief stance. I deeply appreciate our friendship and the opportunity to proselytize. I fell no frustration from not altering you. If you capitulated, this site might have to end. 
So once again I will post the point. Something is eternal. If it is energy/matter in its simplest form (plasma) it has become something much more complex. Some force did that. Plasma, while not inert, will stay in that state unless something forces it to change. Your long explanation is fine and complementary, but avoids answering the issue presented. You've done this before. Think about it.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
DAVID: Thus you maintain your non-belief stance. I deeply appreciate our friendship and the opportunity to proselytize. I fell no frustration from not altering you. If you capitulated, this site might have to end. So once again I will post the point. Something is eternal. If it is energy/matter in its simplest form (plasma) it has become something much more complex. Some force did that. Plasma, while not inert, will stay in that state unless something forces it to change. Your long explanation is fine and complementary, but avoids answering the issue presented. You've done this before. Think about it.
I have no answer. Nobody has. But that is not the only unanswered question to be considered! Consciousness is something none of us can explain. The only consciousness we know of is that of material creatures like ourselves, and evolution clearly suggests a bottom-up process of development culminating in our own. You laugh to scorn the very idea that this consciousness could be the product of chance. And yet you willingly embrace the idea that consciousness does not need a source, does not need a relationship with materials, can be on an infinitely higher level than our own, has no source and has always been there. Why can’t we see it? It conceals itself. How did you hear about it in the first place? Your fellow humans told you that it is there. How can consciousness exist without a source? “First cause” – which merely means you believe in a conscious mind without a source because you believe in a conscious mind without a source. I have offered you two other equally improbable “first causes”, but their improbability does not make yours any more probable. Your observation about plasma is fine “but avoids answering the issue presented” (how can a universal, conscious mind simply be there for ever?). “You’ve done this before. Think about it.”
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
by David Turell , Tuesday, June 02, 2020, 14:06 (1418 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Thus you maintain your non-belief stance. I deeply appreciate our friendship and the opportunity to proselytize. I fell no frustration from not altering you. If you capitulated, this site might have to end. So once again I will post the point. Something is eternal. If it is energy/matter in its simplest form (plasma) it has become something much more complex. Some force did that. Plasma, while not inert, will stay in that state unless something forces it to change. Your long explanation is fine and complementary, but avoids answering the issue presented. You've done this before. Think about it.
dhw: I have no answer. Nobody has. But that is not the only unanswered question to be considered! Consciousness is something none of us can explain. The only consciousness we know of is that of material creatures like ourselves, and evolution clearly suggests a bottom-up process of development culminating in our own. You laugh to scorn the very idea that this consciousness could be the product of chance. And yet you willingly embrace the idea that consciousness does not need a source, does not need a relationship with materials, can be on an infinitely higher level than our own, has no source and has always been there. Why can’t we see it? It conceals itself. How did you hear about it in the first place? Your fellow humans told you that it is there. How can consciousness exist without a source? “First cause” – which merely means you believe in a conscious mind without a source because you believe in a conscious mind without a source. I have offered you two other equally improbable “first causes”, but their improbability does not make yours any more probable. Your observation about plasma is fine “but avoids answering the issue presented” (how can a universal, conscious mind simply be there for ever?). “You’ve done this before. Think about it.”
My fellow humans simply told me there was a force that caused our reality. They named it 'God', but that is just a name they used. We've agreed there has to be a cause, and you have named three without choosing one. Based on one point, the complexity of the design required, there must be a designer! Which for me makes only one of your three causes possible. A designing mind which is eternal. Chance is not possible. I don't accept any third cause. Panpsychism as straining credulity. It again is the unexplained consciousness of the designer in a spread out form. There has to be a driving force to explain the constant trend from simple to complex. And finally a driving force must have a purpose. Our very improbable appearance cements the point. We are the purpose. I see driving force from a First Cause. How do you explain the increasing complexity we know occurred? You don't.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
DAVID: My fellow humans simply told me there was a force that caused our reality. They named it 'God', but that is just a name they used. We've agreed there has to be a cause, and you have named three without choosing one. Based on one point, the complexity of the design required, there must be a designer! Which for me makes only one of your three causes possible. A designing mind which is eternal. Chance is not possible. I don't accept any third cause. Panpsychism as straining credulity. It again is the unexplained consciousness of the designer in a spread out form. There has to be a driving force to explain the constant trend from simple to complex. And finally a driving force must have a purpose. Our very improbable appearance cements the point. We are the purpose. I see driving force from a First Cause. How do you explain the increasing complexity we know occurred? You don't.
Let’s try again. We have a mystery: the origin of life and all its complexities, including consciousness. You claim that these can only have been designed. And so your solution to the mystery is an even greater mystery: a conscious designing mind that was not designed but has existed for ever somehow somewhere nowhere. You have even called it the “unexplained” consciousness of the designer. You ask me to explain complexity, as if that were enough to invalidate any alternative theory, and in the same breath you say you can’t explain your own solution! But I take issue with you on the question of “increasing” complexity. I don’t see that as a problem: once single cells began to merge into cell communities, and these learned to cope with or exploit ever changing conditions, increasing complexity seems to me to be a natural process. It is the ORIGIN of the first cells – themselves enormously complex – that I regard as the mystery. I have offered you three possible first causes: your own unexplained and inexplicable mystery, the second is chance, and the third a form of panpsychism. Bearing in mind that we cannot possibly know what preceded the beginning of our universe, you refuse to consider the possibility of first cause energy and matter eternally forming new combinations until at last there was a stroke of luck. And you refuse to consider undesigned “primitive” material consciousness that evolves from bottom-up, preferring to believe in undesigned total consciousness that has always been there and works top-down. I find all three first causes equally difficult to believe in.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
by David Turell , Wednesday, June 03, 2020, 18:55 (1416 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: My fellow humans simply told me there was a force that caused our reality. They named it 'God', but that is just a name they used. We've agreed there has to be a cause, and you have named three without choosing one. Based on one point, the complexity of the design required, there must be a designer! Which for me makes only one of your three causes possible. A designing mind which is eternal. Chance is not possible. I don't accept any third cause. Panpsychism as straining credulity. It again is the unexplained consciousness of the designer in a spread out form. There has to be a driving force to explain the constant trend from simple to complex. And finally a driving force must have a purpose. Our very improbable appearance cements the point. We are the purpose. I see driving force from a First Cause. How do you explain the increasing complexity we know occurred? You don't.
dhw: Let’s try again. We have a mystery: the origin of life and all its complexities, including consciousness. You claim that these can only have been designed. And so your solution to the mystery is an even greater mystery: a conscious designing mind that was not designed but has existed for ever somehow somewhere nowhere. You have even called it the “unexplained” consciousness of the designer. You ask me to explain complexity, as if that were enough to invalidate any alternative theory, and in the same breath you say you can’t explain your own solution! But I take issue with you on the question of “increasing” complexity. I don’t see that as a problem: once single cells began to merge into cell communities, and these learned to cope with or exploit ever changing conditions, increasing complexity seems to me to be a natural process.
There is no question that complexity increased from the unexplained origin of life. The bold suggests somehow or other those cells 'learned' to respond to changing conditions and that somehow made them into more complex organisms. It is all made-up fairy tale for me.
learning implies a definite mental process. How? What that leaves unexplained is the use of all left handed amino acids (which is an unnatural collection from normal processes) and the appearance of enzymes, which are giant molecules of a very specific designed shape, without which no organic reactions can occur quickly (think of each taking millions of years).
dhw: It is the ORIGIN of the first cells – themselves enormously complex – that I regard as the mystery. I have offered you three possible first causes: your own unexplained and inexplicable mystery, the second is chance, and the third a form of panpsychism. Bearing in mind that we cannot possibly know what preceded the beginning of our universe, you refuse to consider the possibility of first cause energy and matter eternally forming new combinations until at last there was a stroke of luck. And you refuse to consider undesigned “primitive” material consciousness that evolves from bottom-up, preferring to believe in undesigned total consciousness that has always been there and works top-down. I find all three first causes equally difficult to believe in.
Chance does not create the complexity of design present, and you agree. Panpsychism invokes consciousness from nothing with no real explanation, but implies the necessity for a mental
deigning for advances. The bolded is frankly weird. The universe was initially plasma: positively charged atoms without their electrons, forced to be that way from extreme heat or strong electromagnetism. As those forces diminish atoms can regain their electrons and form inorganic compounds. Very simple organic compounds exist naturally in the universe. The next step is the requirement for enzymes to make more complex organic compounds to support an organization that can be life. I showed you James Tour's article. Enzymes from chance combination is sheer lunacy. Without a chemical education you are simply conjuring up pipe dreams. What is left is the obvious need for a designing mind in control of the processes that DID create life. Belief in a preexisting mind requires simple logic, nothing more.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
by David Turell , Wednesday, June 03, 2020, 18:59 (1416 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: My fellow humans simply told me there was a force that caused our reality. They named it 'God', but that is just a name they used. We've agreed there has to be a cause, and you have named three without choosing one. Based on one point, the complexity of the design required, there must be a designer! Which for me makes only one of your three causes possible. A designing mind which is eternal. Chance is not possible. I don't accept any third cause. Panpsychism as straining credulity. It again is the unexplained consciousness of the designer in a spread out form. There has to be a driving force to explain the constant trend from simple to complex. And finally a driving force must have a purpose. Our very improbable appearance cements the point. We are the purpose. I see driving force from a First Cause. How do you explain the increasing complexity we know occurred? You don't.
dhw: Let’s try again. We have a mystery: the origin of life and all its complexities, including consciousness. You claim that these can only have been designed. And so your solution to the mystery is an even greater mystery: a conscious designing mind that was not designed but has existed for ever somehow somewhere nowhere. You have even called it the “unexplained” consciousness of the designer. You ask me to explain complexity, as if that were enough to invalidate any alternative theory, and in the same breath you say you can’t explain your own solution! But I take issue with you on the question of “increasing” complexity. I don’t see that as a problem: once single cells began to merge into cell communities, and these learned to cope with or exploit ever changing conditions, increasing complexity seems to me to be a natural process.
There is no question that complexity increased from the unexplained origin of life. The bold suggests somehow or other those cells 'learned' to respond to changing conditions and that somehow made them into more complex organisms. It is all made-up fairy tale for me.
learning implies a definite mental process. How? What that leaves unexplained is the use of all left handed amino acids (which is an unnatural collection from normal processes) and the appearance of enzymes, which are giant molecules of a very specific designed shape, without which no organic reactions can occur quickly (think of each taking millions of years).
dhw: It is the ORIGIN of the first cells – themselves enormously complex – that I regard as the mystery. I have offered you three possible first causes: your own unexplained and inexplicable mystery, the second is chance, and the third a form of panpsychism. Bearing in mind that we cannot possibly know what preceded the beginning of our universe, you refuse to consider the possibility of first cause energy and matter eternally forming new combinations until at last there was a stroke of luck. And you refuse to consider undesigned “primitive” material consciousness that evolves from bottom-up, preferring to believe in undesigned total consciousness that has always been there and works top-down. I find all three first causes equally difficult to believe in.
Chance does not create the complexity of design present, and you agree. Panpsychism invokes consciousness from nothing with no real explanation, but implies the necessity for a mental
deigning for advances. The bolded is frankly weird. The universe was initially plasma: positively charged atoms without their electrons, forced to be that way from extreme heat or strong electromagnetism. As those forces diminish atoms can regain their electrons and form inorganic compounds. Very simple organic compounds exist naturally in the universe. The next step is the requirement for enzymes to make more complex organic compounds to support an organization that can be life. I showed you James Tour's article. Enzymes from chance combination is sheer lunacy. Without a chemical education you are simply conjuring up pipe dreams. What is left is the obvious need for a designing mind in control of the processes that DID create life. Belief in a preexisting mind requires simple logic, nothing more.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
dhw: I take issue with you on the question of “increasing” complexity. I don’t see that as a problem: once single cells began to merge into cell communities, and these learned to cope with or exploit ever changing conditions, increasing complexity seems to me to be a natural process.
DAVID: There is no question that complexity increased from the unexplained origin of life. The bold suggests somehow or other those cells 'learned' to respond to changing conditions and that somehow made them into more complex organisms. It is all made-up fairy tale for me. learning implies a definite mental process. How? What that leaves unexplained is the use of all left handed amino acids (which is an unnatural collection from normal processes) and the appearance of enzymes, which are giant molecules of a very specific designed shape, without which no organic reactions can occur quickly (think of each taking millions of years).
Of course multicellular communities are more complex than single cells, and of course the bold suggests a definite mental process. That is the basis of the whole theory! And of course the process took millions of years. That is history. Why is cellular intelligence (possibly created by your God) more of a fairy tale than your God preprogramming or dabbling every new complexity in the history of life?
dhw: Bearing in mind that we cannot possibly know what preceded the beginning of our universe, you refuse to consider the possibility of first cause energy and matter eternally forming new combinations until at last there was a stroke of luck. And you refuse to consider undesigned “primitive” material consciousness that evolves from bottom-up, preferring to believe in undesigned total consciousness that has always been there and works top-down. I find all three first causes equally difficult to believe in.
DAVID: Chance does not create the complexity of design present, and you agree. Panpsychism invokes consciousness from nothing with no real explanation, but implies the necessity for a mental deigning for advances. The bolded is frankly weird. The universe was initially plasma: positively charged atoms without their electrons, forced to be that way from extreme heat or strong electromagnetism. As those forces diminish atoms can regain their electrons and form inorganic compounds. Very simple organic compounds exist naturally in the universe. The next step is the requirement for enzymes to make more complex organic compounds to support an organization that can be life. I showed you James Tour's article. Enzymes from chance combination is sheer lunacy. Without a chemical education you are simply conjuring up pipe dreams.
If it were that cut-and-dried, all educated chemists and physicists would believe in God! You have traced the progress from plasma to organic compounds, which “exist naturally in the universe”, and I have no doubt that our atheist friends would claim that what followed was equally natural, and the conjuring up of a mysterious mind without a source and somehow within and without the plasma and the compounds and the enzymes is “sheer lunacy”.
DAVID: What is left is the obvious need for a designing mind in control of the processes that DID create life. Belief in a preexisting mind requires simple logic, nothing more.
I have never opposed the logic of the design argument. But you have always acknowledged that belief in your sourceless, invisible, immaterial, inexplicable, unknowable, unprovable, untestable conscious mind within and without the material universe requires faith. So does belief in chance. So does belief in bottom-up pansychist intelligence. You are very good at attacking the faiths you do not accept, but for some reason you remain blind to the problems with your own. However, I'd prefer not to attack your faith, or that of your adversaries. To each his own. I am simply explaining why I can't share it.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
by David Turell , Thursday, June 04, 2020, 19:18 (1415 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I take issue with you on the question of “increasing” complexity. I don’t see that as a problem: once single cells began to merge into cell communities, and these learned to cope with or exploit ever changing conditions, increasing complexity seems to me to be a natural process.
DAVID: There is no question that complexity increased from the unexplained origin of life. The bold suggests somehow or other those cells 'learned' to respond to changing conditions and that somehow made them into more complex organisms. It is all made-up fairy tale for me. learning implies a definite mental process. How? What that leaves unexplained is the use of all left handed amino acids (which is an unnatural collection from normal processes) and the appearance of enzymes, which are giant molecules of a very specific designed shape, without which no organic reactions can occur quickly (think of each taking millions of years).
dhw: Of course multicellular communities are more complex than single cells, and of course the bold suggests a definite mental process. That is the basis of the whole theory! And of course the process took millions of years. That is history. Why is cellular intelligence (possibly created by your God) more of a fairy tale than your God preprogramming or dabbling every new complexity in the history of life?
The usual non-answer to the degree of complexity that must be explained by the design of automatic intelligent cellular responses. Invoking a god you do not believe in doesn't help your lonely theory. How do you explain the origin of enzymes? Chance?
dhw: Bearing in mind that we cannot possibly know what preceded the beginning of our universe, you refuse to consider the possibility of first cause energy and matter eternally forming new combinations until at last there was a stroke of luck. And you refuse to consider undesigned “primitive” material consciousness that evolves from bottom-up, preferring to believe in undesigned total consciousness that has always been there and works top-down. I find all three first causes equally difficult to believe in.DAVID: Chance does not create the complexity of design present, and you agree. Panpsychism invokes consciousness from nothing with no real explanation, but implies the necessity for a mental deigning for advances. The bolded is frankly weird. The universe was initially plasma: positively charged atoms without their electrons, forced to be that way from extreme heat or strong electromagnetism. As those forces diminish atoms can regain their electrons and form inorganic compounds. Very simple organic compounds exist naturally in the universe. The next step is the requirement for enzymes to make more complex organic compounds to support an organization that can be life. I showed you James Tour's article. Enzymes from chance combination is sheer lunacy. Without a chemical education you are simply conjuring up pipe dreams.
dhw: If it were that cut-and-dried, all educated chemists and physicists would believe in God! You have traced the progress from plasma to organic compounds, which “exist naturally in the universe”, and I have no doubt that our atheist friends would claim that what followed was equally natural, and the conjuring up of a mysterious mind without a source and somehow within and without the plasma and the compounds and the enzymes is “sheer lunacy”.
Only a designing mind explains the complexity. Your only choice is chance or design.
DAVID: What is left is the obvious need for a designing mind in control of the processes that DID create life. Belief in a preexisting mind requires simple logic, nothing more.dhw: I have never opposed the logic of the design argument. But you have always acknowledged that belief in your sourceless, invisible, immaterial, inexplicable, unknowable, unprovable, untestable conscious mind within and without the material universe requires faith. So does belief in chance. So does belief in bottom-up pansychist intelligence. You are very good at attacking the faiths you do not accept, but for some reason you remain blind to the problems with your own. However, I'd prefer not to attack your faith, or that of your adversaries. To each his own. I am simply explaining why I can't share it.
I know that, but cannot understand the choice.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
dhw: Of course multicellular communities are more complex than single cells, and of course the bold suggests a definite mental process. That is the basis of the whole theory! And of course the process took millions of years. That is history. Why is cellular intelligence (possibly created by your God) more of a fairy tale than your God preprogramming or dabbling every new complexity in the history of life?
DAVID: The usual non-answer to the degree of complexity that must be explained by the design of automatic intelligent cellular responses. Invoking a god you do not believe in doesn't help your lonely theory. How do you explain the origin of enzymes? Chance?
Cellular intelligence is not my lonely theory. Why do you continue to pretend that Margulis, McClintock, Buehler, Shapiro and Co. never existed? Why do you continue to conflate the theory of cellular intelligence with the unanswered question of origins? We don’t know the origin of consciousness, so does that mean consciousness does not exist? Why are you so terrified of the idea that your God might not have dabbled or programmed every single life form, econiche, strategy, natural wonder in the history of life? Just tell us why a God-made cellular intelligence is more of a fairy tale than God preprogramming or dabbling every new complexity in life?
DAVID: Enzymes from chance combination is sheer lunacy. Without a chemical education you are simply conjuring up pipe dreams.
dhw: If it were that cut-and-dried, all educated chemists and physicists would believe in God! You have traced the progress from plasma to organic compounds, which “exist naturally in the universe”, and I have no doubt that our atheist friends would claim that what followed was equally natural, and the conjuring up of a mysterious mind without a source and somehow within and without the plasma and the compounds and the enzymes is “sheer lunacy”.
DAVID: Only a designing mind explains the complexity. Your only choice is chance or design.
You’ve left out the atheistic panpsychist option (bottom-up intelligence). Many educated chemists and physicists and biologists would claim that your choice is “sheer lunacy” (an expression on an extremist par with terms like “The God Delusion”). I don’t agree with any of you. I recognize the pros and cons of each option, and as none of you can possibly know the truth, I would plead for tolerance, moderate language, and respect.
dhw: You are very good at attacking the faiths you do not accept, but for some reason you remain blind to the problems with your own. However, I'd prefer not to attack your faith, or that of your adversaries. To each his own. I am simply explaining why I can't share it.
DAVID: I know that, but cannot understand the choice.
That puts you exactly on a par with the atheists.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
by David Turell , Friday, June 05, 2020, 19:48 (1414 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Of course multicellular communities are more complex than single cells, and of course the bold suggests a definite mental process. That is the basis of the whole theory! And of course the process took millions of years. That is history. Why is cellular intelligence (possibly created by your God) more of a fairy tale than your God preprogramming or dabbling every new complexity in the history of life?
DAVID: The usual non-answer to the degree of complexity that must be explained by the design of automatic intelligent cellular responses. Invoking a god you do not believe in doesn't help your lonely theory. How do you explain the origin of enzymes? Chance?
dhw: Cellular intelligence is not my lonely theory. Why do you continue to pretend that Margulis, McClintock, Buehler, Shapiro and Co. never existed? Why do you continue to conflate the theory of cellular intelligence with the unanswered question of origins? We don’t know the origin of consciousness, so does that mean consciousness does not exist? Why are you so terrified of the idea that your God might not have dabbled or programmed every single life form, econiche, strategy, natural wonder in the history of life? Just tell us why a God-made cellular intelligence is more of a fairy tale than God preprogramming or dabbling every new complexity in life?
You always ignore is that cellular intelligence is only an appearance from the outside of cells. When we go inside all we see is automatic molecular activity at very, very high speed, all the reactions highly coordinated. Always looks very intelligently organized and designed to me.
DAVID: Only a designing mind explains the complexity. Your only choice is chance or design.
dhw: You’ve left out the atheistic panpsychist option (bottom-up intelligence). Many educated chemists and physicists and biologists would claim that your choice is “sheer lunacy” (an expression on an extremist par with terms like “The God Delusion”). I don’t agree with any of you. I recognize the pros and cons of each option, and as none of you can possibly know the truth, I would plead for tolerance, moderate language, and respect.
dhw: You are very good at attacking the faiths you do not accept, but for some reason you remain blind to the problems with your own. However, I'd prefer not to attack your faith, or that of your adversaries. To each his own. I am simply explaining why I can't share it.
DAVID: I know that, but cannot understand the choice.
dhw: That puts you exactly on a par with the atheists.
Yes, they don't understand your agnosticism, you should be atheistic.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
DAVID: Invoking a god you do not believe in doesn't help your lonely theory. How do you explain the origin of enzymes? Chance?
dhw: Cellular intelligence is not my lonely theory. Why do you continue to pretend that Margulis, McClintock, Buehler, Shapiro and Co. never existed? Why do you continue to conflate the theory of cellular intelligence with the unanswered question of origins? We don’t know the origin of consciousness, so does that mean consciousness does not exist? Why are you so terrified of the idea that your God might not have dabbled or programmed every single life form, econiche, strategy, natural wonder in the history of life? Just tell us why a God-made cellular intelligence is more of a fairy tale than God preprogramming or dabbling every new complexity in life?
DAVID: You always ignore is that cellular intelligence is only an appearance from the outside of cells. When we go inside all we see is automatic molecular activity at very, very high speed, all the reactions highly coordinated. Always looks very intelligently organized and designed to me.
When you look inside a human being, all you will see is automatic molecular activity. You can’t SEE intelligence! You can only identify it through behaviour. You claimed that my theory was “lonely”. It is not (see above). You have always acknowledged that it has a 50/50 chance of being correct. So once more, please tell us why it is more of a fairy tale than your God preprogramming or dabbling every new complexity in life.
dhw: You are very good at attacking the faiths you do not accept, but for some reason you remain blind to the problems with your own. However, I'd prefer not to attack your faith, or that of your adversaries. To each his own. I am simply explaining why I can't share it.
DAVID: I know that, but cannot understand the choice.
dhw: That puts you exactly on a par with the atheists.
DAVID: Yes, they don't understand your agnosticism, you should be atheistic.
You don’t understand it either and think I should be theistic! Why can’t any of you just accept that not everyone is able to share your faith in the unknowable?
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
by David Turell , Saturday, June 06, 2020, 15:32 (1414 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Invoking a god you do not believe in doesn't help your lonely theory. How do you explain the origin of enzymes? Chance?
dhw: Cellular intelligence is not my lonely theory. Why do you continue to pretend that Margulis, McClintock, Buehler, Shapiro and Co. never existed? Why do you continue to conflate the theory of cellular intelligence with the unanswered question of origins? We don’t know the origin of consciousness, so does that mean consciousness does not exist? Why are you so terrified of the idea that your God might not have dabbled or programmed every single life form, econiche, strategy, natural wonder in the history of life? Just tell us why a God-made cellular intelligence is more of a fairy tale than God preprogramming or dabbling every new complexity in life?
DAVID: You always ignore is that cellular intelligence is only an appearance from the outside of cells. When we go inside all we see is automatic molecular activity at very, very high speed, all the reactions highly coordinated. Always looks very intelligently organized and designed to me.
dhw: When you look inside a human being, all you will see is automatic molecular activity. You can’t SEE intelligence! You can only identify it through behaviour. You claimed that my theory was “lonely”. It is not (see above). You have always acknowledged that it has a 50/50 chance of being correct. So once more, please tell us why it is more of a fairy tale than your God preprogramming or dabbling every new complexity in life.
What is acting as the man behind the screen as in Wizard of Oz? The instructions the cell follows in its genome. My personal odds are 100%
dhw: You are very good at attacking the faiths you do not accept, but for some reason you remain blind to the problems with your own. However, I'd prefer not to attack your faith, or that of your adversaries. To each his own. I am simply explaining why I can't share it.DAVID: I know that, but cannot understand the choice.
dhw: That puts you exactly on a par with the atheists.
DAVID: Yes, they don't understand your agnosticism, you should be atheistic.
dhw: You don’t understand it either and think I should be theistic! Why can’t any of you just accept that not everyone is able to share your faith in the unknowable?
I can't accept the complexity of the biology of life I fully understand without a designer.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
DAVID: You always ignore is that cellular intelligence is only an appearance from the outside of cells. When we go inside all we see is automatic molecular activity at very, very high speed, all the reactions highly coordinated. Always looks very intelligently organized and designed to me.
dhw: When you look inside a human being, all you will see is automatic molecular activity. You can’t SEE intelligence! You can only identify it through behaviour. You claimed that my theory was “lonely”. It is not (see above). You have always acknowledged that it has a 50/50 chance of being correct. So once more, please tell us why it is more of a fairy tale than your God preprogramming or dabbling every new complexity in life.
DAVID: What is acting as the man behind the screen as in Wizard of Oz? The instructions the cell follows in its genome. My personal odds are 100%.
So what are you referring to when you tell us the odds are 50/50?
dhw: You are very good at attacking the faiths you do not accept, but for some reason you remain blind to the problems with your own. However, I'd prefer not to attack your faith, or that of your adversaries. To each his own. I am simply explaining why I can't share it.
DAVID: I know that, but cannot understand the choice.
dhw: That puts you exactly on a par with the atheists.
DAVID: Yes, they don't understand your agnosticism, you should be atheistic.
dhw: You don’t understand it either and think I should be theistic! Why can’t any of you just accept that not everyone is able to share your faith in the unknowable?
DAVID: I can't accept the complexity of the biology of life I fully understand without a designer.
And the atheist can’t accept the existence of an unknown, unknowable, hidden, inexplicable, sourceless, eternal, immaterial form of universal consciousness. You both refuse to take off your blinkers, but one of you is right. To each his own.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
by David Turell , Sunday, June 07, 2020, 20:28 (1412 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You always ignore is that cellular intelligence is only an appearance from the outside of cells. When we go inside all we see is automatic molecular activity at very, very high speed, all the reactions highly coordinated. Always looks very intelligently organized and designed to me.
dhw: When you look inside a human being, all you will see is automatic molecular activity. You can’t SEE intelligence! You can only identify it through behaviour. You claimed that my theory was “lonely”. It is not (see above). You have always acknowledged that it has a 50/50 chance of being correct. So once more, please tell us why it is more of a fairy tale than your God preprogramming or dabbling every new complexity in life.
DAVID: What is acting as the man behind the screen as in Wizard of Oz? The instructions the cell follows in its genome. My personal odds are 100%.
dhw: So what are you referring to when you tell us the odds are 50/50?
On a chance basis it is either or, so only one is possible. 50/50 has always described that and therefore is never an opinion in and of itself. Personal choice is based on thoughtful analysis of the relevant facts.
dhw: You are very good at attacking the faiths you do not accept, but for some reason you remain blind to the problems with your own. However, I'd prefer not to attack your faith, or that of your adversaries. To each his own. I am simply explaining why I can't share it.DAVID: I know that, but cannot understand the choice.
dhw: That puts you exactly on a par with the atheists.
DAVID: Yes, they don't understand your agnosticism, you should be atheistic.
dhw: You don’t understand it either and think I should be theistic! Why can’t any of you just accept that not everyone is able to share your faith in the unknowable?
DAVID: I can't accept the complexity of the biology of life I fully understand without a designer.
dhw: And the atheist can’t accept the existence of an unknown, unknowable, hidden, inexplicable, sourceless, eternal, immaterial form of universal consciousness. You both refuse to take off your blinkers, but one of you is right. To each his own.
But you agree design implies a designer, don't you?
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
DAVID: You always ignore is that cellular intelligence is only an appearance from the outside of cells. When we go inside all we see is automatic molecular activity at very, very high speed, all the reactions highly coordinated. Always looks very intelligently organized and designed to me.
dhw: When you look inside a human being, all you will see is automatic molecular activity. You can’t SEE intelligence! You can only identify it through behaviour. You claimed that my theory was “lonely”. It is not (see above). You have always acknowledged that it has a 50/50 chance of being correct. So once more, please tell us why it is more of a fairy tale than your God preprogramming or dabbling every new complexity in life.
DAVID: What is acting as the man behind the screen as in Wizard of Oz? The instructions the cell follows in its genome. My personal odds are 100%.
dhw: So what are you referring to when you tell us the odds are 50/50?
DAVID: On a chance basis it is either or, so only one is possible. 50/50 has always described that and therefore is never an opinion in and of itself. Personal choice is based on thoughtful analysis of the relevant facts.
50/50 means there is an equal chance of each option being correct. 100% means dismissal of 50% of possible correctness. But I’m glad you recognize that those who have made their personal choice in favour of cellular intelligence must have based that choice on thoughtful analysis of the relevant facts.
DAVID: I can't accept the complexity of the biology of life I fully understand without a designer.
dhw: And the atheist can’t accept the existence of an unknown, unknowable, hidden, inexplicable, sourceless, eternal, immaterial form of universal consciousness. You both refuse to take off your blinkers, but one of you is right. To each his own.
DAVID: But you agree design implies a designer, don't you?
Or designers. For instance, if all the increasing complexities of life were the product of intelligent cells cooperating, we would have millions of designers. The question then would be: how did the intelligent cell originate? And that question is on a par with: how did your God originate? And so back we go to “first cause”, as already discussed.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
by David Turell , Monday, June 08, 2020, 17:54 (1411 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: So what are you referring to when you tell us the odds are 50/50?
DAVID: On a chance basis it is either or, so only one is possible. 50/50 has always described that and therefore is never an opinion in and of itself. Personal choice is based on thoughtful analysis of the relevant facts.
dhw: 50/50 means there is an equal chance of each option being correct. 100% means dismissal of 50% of possible correctness. But I’m glad you recognize that those who have made their personal choice in favour of cellular intelligence must have based that choice on thoughtful analysis of the relevant facts.
One makes a decision based on the degree of importance one gives to each fact.
DAVID: I can't accept the complexity of the biology of life I fully understand without a designer.dhw: And the atheist can’t accept the existence of an unknown, unknowable, hidden, inexplicable, sourceless, eternal, immaterial form of universal consciousness. You both refuse to take off your blinkers, but one of you is right. To each his own.
DAVID: But you agree design implies a designer, don't you?
dhw: Or designers. For instance, if all the increasing complexities of life were the product of intelligent cells cooperating, we would have millions of designers. The question then would be: how did the intelligent cell originate? And that question is on a par with: how did your God originate? And so back we go to “first cause”, as already discussed.
It is easy to see intelligence in the purposeful activity of cells, since they are designed that way by their designer, who also is first cause.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
dhw (under "neutrophiles"): For those of us who believe in evolution, EVERY system must have originated from new forms of cooperation between cells/cell communities. Once a system is established, it will work automatically. If it doesn’t, we could be in trouble, though just like bacteria, the intelligent cell communities may then find a way of adapting themselves, as with the example of high altitude readjustments. There is no point in your picking on individual examples of automatism and then claiming that they disprove cellular intelligence! And I have NEVER claimed that “each cell knows what it is doing and thinks what to do.”
DAVID: Our only difference then is the source of intelligent activity by cells. I have God as the source, and you don't know of a source, but God is possible.
Unfortunately, our fundamental difference is the NATURE of intelligent activity. You insist that each activity has been programmed or dabbled by your God, and the cells are automatons obeying his instructions, whereas I propose that cellular intelligence is autonomous.
xxxxx
dhw: So what are you referring to when you tell us the odds are 50/50?
DAVID: On a chance basis it is either or, so only one is possible. 50/50 has always described that and therefore is never an opinion in and of itself. Personal choice is based on thoughtful analysis of the relevant facts.
dhw: 50/50 means there is an equal chance of each option being correct. 100% means dismissal of 50% of possible correctness. But I’m glad you recognize that those who have made their personal choice in favour of cellular intelligence must have based that choice on thoughtful analysis of the relevant facts.
DAVID: One makes a decision based on the degree of importance one gives to each fact.
Agreed. And if the facts in themselves leave the odds at 50/50, clearly your subjective assessment of them has no more validity than anyone else’s!
DAVID: I can't accept the complexity of the biology of life I fully understand without a designer.
dhw: And the atheist can’t accept the existence of an unknown, unknowable, hidden, inexplicable, sourceless, eternal, immaterial form of universal consciousness. You both refuse to take off your blinkers, but one of you is right. To each his own.
DAVID: But you agree design implies a designer, don't you?
dhw: Or designers. For instance, if all the increasing complexities of life were the product of intelligent cells cooperating, we would have millions of designers. The question then would be: how did the intelligent cell originate? And that question is on a par with: how did your God originate? And so back we go to “first cause”, as already discussed.
DAVID: It is easy to see intelligence in the purposeful activity of cells, since they are designed that way by their designer, who also is first cause.
Yes, their purposeful, autonomous intelligence could have been designed by a designer. And an atheist can say that their purposeful, autonomous intelligence, like life itself***, was the result of a lucky combination of mindless energy and matter, which is also first cause.
***Under "theoretical origin of life": "There are two explanations for the origins of life's building molecules: extraterrestrial delivery, such as via meteorites, and endogenous formation. The presence of amino acids and other biomolecules in meteorites points to the former.”
See what I mean?
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
by David Turell , Tuesday, June 09, 2020, 19:53 (1410 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Our only difference then is the source of intelligent activity by cells. I have God as the source, and you don't know of a source, but God is possible.
dhw: Unfortunately, our fundamental difference is the NATURE of intelligent activity. You insist that each activity has been programmed or dabbled by your God, and the cells are automatons obeying his instructions, whereas I propose that cellular intelligence is autonomous.
But you have no explanation for the origin of cellular intelligence.
xxxxxDAVID: I can't accept the complexity of the biology of life I fully understand without a designer.
dhw: And the atheist can’t accept the existence of an unknown, unknowable, hidden, inexplicable, sourceless, eternal, immaterial form of universal consciousness. You both refuse to take off your blinkers, but one of you is right. To each his own.
DAVID: But you agree design implies a designer, don't you?
dhw: Or designers. For instance, if all the increasing complexities of life were the product of intelligent cells cooperating, we would have millions of designers. The question then would be: how did the intelligent cell originate? And that question is on a par with: how did your God originate? And so back we go to “first cause”, as already discussed.
DAVID: It is easy to see intelligence in the purposeful activity of cells, since they are designed that way by their designer, who also is first cause.
dhw: Yes, their purposeful, autonomous intelligence could have been designed by a designer. And an atheist can say that their purposeful, autonomous intelligence, like life itself***, was the result of a lucky combination of mindless energy and matter, which is also first cause.
And I go back to in basic form of plasma the charged ions combine in no particular direction unless under a specific force, which appeared because of what?
dhw: ***Under "theoretical origin of life": "There are two explanations for the origins of life's building molecules: extraterrestrial delivery, such as via meteorites, and endogenous formation. The presence of amino acids and other biomolecules in meteorites points to the former.”
See what I mean?
We know that some amino acids arrived by meteorites. That is old news. Tells us nothing about how the necessary 20 amino acids, all left-handed appeared and were combined by some process to make active living biochemistry.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
Under "A PHYSICIST BELIEVES IN FREE WILL":
QUOTE: "As explained by Denis Noble and Raymond Noble in their paper for the journal Chaos in 2018, molecular randomness gives cellular mechanisms the option of choosing the outcomes they want, and discarding those they don’t."
DAVID: this is a purely materialistic view of brain function, but it certainly allows for free will. Enormous article filled with explanations worth studying.
Thank you for the article and for editing it. I found his purely materialistic view generally difficult to reconcile with the concept of free will, but the above quote clearly proposes that cell communities make their own choices (one up for cellular intelligence), and if we were to expand that proposal to the thinking part of the materialist’s brain, then clearly we can argue that our own personal thinking cells make our choices our own!
XXXXXX
DAVID: Our only difference then is the source of intelligent activity by cells. I have God as the source, and you don't know of a source, but God is possible.
dhw: Unfortunately, our fundamental difference is the NATURE of intelligent activity. You insist that each activity has been programmed or dabbled by your God, and the cells are automatons obeying his instructions, whereas I propose that cellular intelligence is autonomous.
DAVID: But you have no explanation for the origin of cellular intelligence.
I have always allowed for God as the designer. The subject under discussion is not the origin of cellular intelligence but WHETHER cells are intelligent or not.
DAVID: It is easy to see intelligence in the purposeful activity of cells, since they are designed that way by their designer, who also is first cause.
dhw: Yes, their purposeful, autonomous intelligence could have been designed by a designer. And an atheist can say that their purposeful, autonomous intelligence, like life itself***, was the result of a lucky combination of mindless energy and matter, which is also first cause.
DAVID: And I go back to in basic form of plasma the charged ions combine in no particular direction unless under a specific force, which appeared because of what?
And I go back to the basic question of a universal conscious mind which appeared because of what? We are going round in circles! All three “first causes” require blinkered faith if anyone is to believe in them.
dhw: ***Under "theoretical origin of life": "There are two explanations for the origins of life's building molecules: extraterrestrial delivery, such as via meteorites, and endogenous formation. The presence of amino acids and other biomolecules in meteorites points to the former.”
See what I mean?
DAVID: We know that some amino acids arrived by meteorites. That is old news. Tells us nothing about how the necessary 20 amino acids, all left-handed appeared and were combined by some process to make active living biochemistry.
You missed the point. The article confirms what I told you would be the atheist approach.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
by David Turell , Wednesday, June 10, 2020, 17:34 (1409 days ago) @ dhw
Under "A PHYSICIST BELIEVES IN FREE WILL":
QUOTE: "As explained by Denis Noble and Raymond Noble in their paper for the journal Chaos in 2018, molecular randomness gives cellular mechanisms the option of choosing the outcomes they want, and discarding those they don’t."DAVID: this is a purely materialistic view of brain function, but it certainly allows for free will. Enormous article filled with explanations worth studying.
Thank you for the article and for editing it. I found his purely materialistic view generally difficult to reconcile with the concept of free will, but the above quote clearly proposes that cell communities make their own choices (one up for cellular intelligence), and if we were to expand that proposal to the thinking part of the materialist’s brain, then clearly we can argue that our own personal thinking cells make our choices our own!
i remind that cell choices may be according to guiding instructions they contain.
XXXXXX
DAVID: Our only difference then is the source of intelligent activity by cells. I have God as the source, and you don't know of a source, but God is possible.dhw: Unfortunately, our fundamental difference is the NATURE of intelligent activity. You insist that each activity has been programmed or dabbled by your God, and the cells are automatons obeying his instructions, whereas I propose that cellular intelligence is autonomous.
DAVID: But you have no explanation for the origin of cellular intelligence.
dhw: I have always allowed for God as the designer. The subject under discussion is not the origin of cellular intelligence but WHETHER cells are intelligent or not.
Or designed to react intelligently follwing guideline instructions
DAVID: It is easy to see intelligence in the purposeful activity of cells, since they are designed that way by their designer, who also is first cause.dhw: Yes, their purposeful, autonomous intelligence could have been designed by a designer. And an atheist can say that their purposeful, autonomous intelligence, like life itself***, was the result of a lucky combination of mindless energy and matter, which is also first cause.
DAVID: And I go back to in basic form of plasma the charged ions combine in no particular direction unless under a specific force, which appeared because of what?
dhw: And I go back to the basic question of a universal conscious mind which appeared because of what? We are going round in circles! All three “first causes” require blinkered faith if anyone is to believe in them.
But one is the true first cause.
dhw: ***Under "theoretical origin of life": "There are two explanations for the origins of life's building molecules: extraterrestrial delivery, such as via meteorites, and endogenous formation. The presence of amino acids and other biomolecules in meteorites points to the former.”
See what I mean?DAVID: We know that some amino acids arrived by meteorites. That is old news. Tells us nothing about how the necessary 20 amino acids, all left-handed appeared and were combined by some process to make active living biochemistry.
You missed the point. The article confirms what I told you would be the atheist approach.
No I didn't. I simply objected to the assumptions in the quote, asking how do you get from here to there? Neither meteorite nor endogenous formation explains any of the process that made live life. The atheist approach is no approach at all, just hollow words.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
Under "A PHYSICIST BELIEVES IN FREE WILL":
QUOTE: "As explained by Denis Noble and Raymond Noble in their paper for the journal Chaos in 2018, molecular randomness gives cellular mechanisms the option of choosing the outcomes they want, and discarding those they don’t."
dhw: I found his purely materialistic view generally difficult to reconcile with the concept of free will, but the above quote clearly proposes that cell communities make their own choices (one up for cellular intelligence), and if we were to expand that proposal to the thinking part of the materialist’s brain, then clearly we can argue that our own personal thinking cells make our choices our own!
DAVID: i remind that cell choices may be according to guiding instructions they contain.
If cells do not have the option to make their own choices but can only follow instructions, the materialist would have to reject the concept of free will.
dhw: Unfortunately, our fundamental difference is the NATURE of intelligent activity. You insist that each activity has been programmed or dabbled by your God, and the cells are automatons obeying his instructions, whereas I propose that cellular intelligence is autonomous.
DAVID: But you have no explanation for the origin of cellular intelligence.
dhw: I have always allowed for God as the designer. The subject under discussion is not the origin of cellular intelligence but WHETHER cells are intelligent or not.
DAVID: Or designed to react intelligently follwing guideline instructions
Yes, that is the “or not” part of my sentence. Let us remember that your “guideline instructions” = a divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every intelligent reaction, or a direct divine dabble.
dhw: All three “first causes” require blinkered faith if anyone is to believe in them.
DAVID: But one is the true first cause.
But nobody knows which it is. Hence the need for blinkered faith.
dhw: You missed the point. The article confirms what I told you would be the atheist approach.
DAVID: No I didn't. I simply objected to the assumptions in the quote, asking how do you get from here to there? Neither meteorite nor endogenous formation explains any of the process that made live life. The atheist approach is no approach at all, just hollow words.
Agreed. It is on a par with the explanation that the origin of life is an unknown, unknowable, hidden, immaterial being without a source who knows everything and can do anything and whom we can call God or Allah or Jehovah or anything we like.
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
by David Turell , Thursday, June 11, 2020, 15:51 (1408 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: i remind that cell choices may be according to guiding instructions they contain.
dhw: If cells do not have the option to make their own choices but can only follow instructions, the materialist would have to reject the concept of free will.
Many mterialists reject free will anyway. How do they explain the complexification process in which neurons set up new networks and adjust synapse controls to accommodate differing thought patterns driven by the soul? They don't accept the soul, but at least know the person drives the brain.
dhw: Unfortunately, our fundamental difference is the NATURE of intelligent activity. You insist that each activity has been programmed or dabbled by your God, and the cells are automatons obeying his instructions, whereas I propose that cellular intelligence is autonomous.DAVID: But you have no explanation for the origin of cellular intelligence.
dhw: I have always allowed for God as the designer. The subject under discussion is not the origin of cellular intelligence but WHETHER cells are intelligent or not.
DAVID: Or designed to react intelligently following guideline instructions
dhw: Yes, that is the “or not” part of my sentence. Let us remember that your “guideline instructions” = a divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every intelligent reaction, or a direct divine dabble.
Your 'or not' never answers where innate cell intelligence came from. You give a nod to God a a supplier, and the rest is always nebulous.
dhw: All three “first causes” require blinkered faith if anyone is to believe in them.DAVID: But one is the true first cause.
dhw: But nobody knows which it is. Hence the need for blinkered faith.
Yes and one is allowed to make a logical choice.
dhw: You missed the point. The article confirms what I told you would be the atheist approach.DAVID: No I didn't. I simply objected to the assumptions in the quote, asking how do you get from here to there? Neither meteorite nor endogenous formation explains any of the process that made live life. The atheist approach is no approach at all, just hollow words.
dhw: Agreed. It is on a par with the explanation that the origin of life is an unknown, unknowable, hidden, immaterial being without a source who knows everything and can do anything and whom we can call God or Allah or Jehovah or anything we like.
And the miracle of life is totally unexplained by 70 years of scientific effort. A designer is obviously required
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
DAVID: i remind that cell choices may be according to guiding instructions they contain.
dhw: If cells do not have the option to make their own choices but can only follow instructions, the materialist would have to reject the concept of free will.
DAVID: Many mterialists reject free will anyway. How do they explain the complexification process in which neurons set up new networks and adjust synapse controls to accommodate differing thought patterns driven by the soul? They don't accept the soul, but at least know the person drives the brain.
If I were a materialist, I would say that the decisions made by the person who drives the brain are dictated by causes beyond his control, including the make-up of the cells that form his brain. (NB I am neither a materialist nor a dualist!)
dhw: The subject under discussion is not the origin of cellular intelligence but WHETHER cells are intelligent or not.[…]
DAVID: Your 'or not' never answers where innate cell intelligence came from. You give a nod to God a a supplier, and the rest is always nebulous.
Either God, a chance combination of materials, or a form of panpsychism (= countless innate intelligences as opposed to the one intelligence you call God).
dhw: All three “first causes” require blinkered faith if anyone is to believe in them.
DAVID: But one is the true first cause.
dhw: But nobody knows which it is. Hence the need for blinkered faith.
DAVID: Yes and one is allowed to make a logical choice.
Of course. And both atheist and theist will claim that their choice is logical.
DAVID: [...] The atheist approach is no approach at all, just hollow words.
dhw: Agreed. It is on a par with the explanation that the origin of life is an unknown, unknowable, hidden, immaterial being without a source who knows everything and can do anything and whom we can call God or Allah or Jehovah or anything we like.
DAVID: And the miracle of life is totally unexplained by 70 years of scientific effort. A designer is obviously required.
You keep repeating your belief, and I keep repeating the atheist belief (that chance created life). You keep repeating your objections to their belief, and I keep repeating their objections to your belief. I suggest we end this discussion!
Afterlife: Pinker's skeptical thought
by David Turell , Friday, June 12, 2020, 15:44 (1407 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: i remind that cell choices may be according to guiding instructions they contain.
dhw: If cells do not have the option to make their own choices but can only follow instructions, the materialist would have to reject the concept of free will.
DAVID: Many materialists reject free will anyway. How do they explain the complexification process in which neurons set up new networks and adjust synapse controls to accommodate differing thought patterns driven by the soul? They don't accept the soul, but at least know the person drives the brain.
dhw: If I were a materialist, I would say that the decisions made by the person who drives the brain are dictated by causes beyond his control, including the make-up of the cells that form his brain. (NB I am neither a materialist nor a dualist!)
dhw: The subject under discussion is not the origin of cellular intelligence but WHETHER cells are intelligent or not.[…]
DAVID: Your 'or not' never answers where innate cell intelligence came from. You give a nod to God a a supplier, and the rest is always nebulous.
dhw Either God, a chance combination of materials, or a form of panpsychism (= countless innate intelligences as opposed to the one intelligence you call God).
dhw: All three “first causes” require blinkered faith if anyone is to believe in them.
DAVID: But one is the true first cause.
dhw: But nobody knows which it is. Hence the need for blinkered faith.
DAVID: Yes and one is allowed to make a logical choice.
Of course. And both atheist and theist will claim that their choice is logical.
DAVID: [...] The atheist approach is no approach at all, just hollow words.
dhw: Agreed. It is on a par with the explanation that the origin of life is an unknown, unknowable, hidden, immaterial being without a source who knows everything and can do anything and whom we can call God or Allah or Jehovah or anything we like.
DAVID: And the miracle of life is totally unexplained by 70 years of scientific effort. A designer is obviously required.
dhw: You keep repeating your belief, and I keep repeating the atheist belief (that chance created life). You keep repeating your objections to their belief, and I keep repeating their objections to your belief. I suggest we end this discussion!
Agreed.
Afterlife: Greyson's current thinking about new research
by David Turell , Thursday, January 19, 2023, 18:42 (456 days ago) @ David Turell
I have followed his research since his experiences in Seattle in the 1980's when Kimberly Clark. a social worker. listened to and confirmed Maria's out-of-body experience seeing the famous tennis shoe on a cabinet top while floating next to a hospital window. This is his latest work:
https://www.sciencealert.com/were-getting-closer-to-understanding-why-our-moment-of-dea...
"...a lot about NDEs remains a mystery, in part, because it's practically impossible to study in real-time, said Dr. Bruce Greyson, a professor of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences at the University of Virginia and co-founder of the International Association of Near-Death Studies.
"Researchers must rely on anecdotes, memory recall, and in some cases, animal studies to understand how brains change from a NDE and what it could mean for future medicine.
***
"Seeing loved ones – deceased or living – is common among NDEs, as is seeing a bright light at the end of a tunnel.
"Other people have reported more corporeal sensations like that of leaving their body, floating above it, feeling physically drawn into that tunnel with the light at the end of it, or having a spiritual encounter with a supreme being, aliens, or lost loved ones.
"And all the while, during these other-worldly experiences, people rarely report having felt fear or pain – it's usually an overwhelming sense of calm and love.
"Some of these phenomena can't be explained by science – at least not yet. But in 2022 the NDE research community received something it had never witnessed before: the brain scan of a dying man.
"And it unveiled some secrets that, up to that point, scientists could only speculate.
***
"In 2016, a then-87-year-old man was connected to an electroencephalogram, or EEG, when he unexpectedly had a heart attack and died. Researchers later published the results in Frontiers of Aging Neuroscience.
"An EEG measures electrical signals that the brain produces in order to help diagnose or examine certain neurological conditions like seizures and memory loss.
Sure enough, doctors were monitoring the man for a series of recent seizures when his heart suddenly stopped beating.
"In the paper, researchers reported that during the 15 seconds leading up to the man's heart attack, the EEG scan revealed high-frequency brainwaves called gamma oscillations, which are thought to play a role in creating and retrieving memories.
"'It is very hard to make claims with one case… but what we can claim is that we have signals just before death and just after the heart stops like those that happen in the healthy human when they dream or memorize or meditate," lead study author Dr. Ajmal Zemmar told Insider's Anna Medaris.
"Of course, these scans are of a man seconds before death and not exactly equivalent to an NDE, where the person survives. However, such activity may help explain why people see memory flashbacks or faces of people they know during an NDE, Greyson said.
"Moreover, EEG scans of people attempting to remember their NDE also provide more clues to what an NDE does to the human brain.
"When people recall an NDE, the brain "shows increased activity in many different parts," Greyson said, "such as those associated with memory, vision, hearing, and emotion."
"In particular, the temporal lobe, which is responsible for helping process sound and encode memories, is thought to be associated with out-of-body experiences and memory flashbacks during NDEs, said Dr. David San Filippo, an associate professor at National Louis University and a near-death experience researcher.
"'That has led some people to believe that near-death experiences are simply biological, chemical reactions to the brain dying," San Filippo said.
***
"To that point, a study in rats suggested that the overwhelmingly positive experience people report with NDEs may be linked to a flood of serotonin the brain releases. This may be the brain's way of gradually preparing the body for death by inducing feelings of euphoria and pain relief, San Filippo said.
***
"Across different age groups and among people in different countries, reports of NDEs are strikingly similar, especially in regards to encountering a spiritual deity or feeling part of something bigger than life on earth, San Filippo said.
"'We hear the same story. It might differ based on cultural or spiritual beliefs, but it is essentially the same," San Filippo said. "That leads us to believe that a near-death experience is a transpersonal experience happening outside of the brain." (my bold)
***
"San Filippo said that people in his studies who have had an NDE and recall feeling calm and comforted during the experience report that they no longer fear death.
"'If we can learn more about what causes a positive near-death experience that is comfortable and peaceful, we could possibly develop a powerful therapy for people who are in turmoil or struggling," Rasouli said."
Comment: NDE's are common and soften and remove fear of death. Note my bold. San Fillippo has joined past researchers who wonder about consciousness being separate from the brain, while at the same time studying the chemical and electrical changes in a materialism approach which is looking at how the brain responds during NDE's.
Afterlife: Kurt Godel's thoughts
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 02, 2024, 16:19 (108 days ago) @ David Turell
In letters to his mother:
https://aeon.co/essays/kurt-godel-his-mother-and-the-argument-for-life-after-death?utm_...
"His rationale for belief in an afterlife is this:
"If the world is rationally organised and has meaning, then it must be the case. For what sort of a meaning would it have to bring about a being (the human being) with such a wide field of possibilities for personal development and relationships to others, only then to let him achieve not even 1/1,000th of it?
"He deepens the rhetorical question at the end with the metaphor of someone who lays the foundation for a house only to walk away from the project and let it waste away. Gödel thinks such waste is impossible since the world, he insists, gives us good reason to consider it to be shot through with order and meaning. Hence, a human being who can achieve only partial fulfilment in a lifetime must seek rational validation for this deficiency in a future world, one in which our potential manifests.
"Before moving on, it is good to pause and capture Gödel’s argument in a nutshell. Assuming that the world is rationally organised, human life – as embedded in the world – ought to possess the same rational structure. We have grounds for assuming that the world is rationally organised. Yet human life is irrationally structured. It is constituted by a great potential but it never fully expresses this potential in a lifetime. Hence, each of us must realise our full potential in a future world. Reason demands it.
***
"As he neatly summarises in the fourth letter to his mother:
"What I name a theological Weltanschauung is the view that the world and everything in it has meaning and reason, and indeed a good and indubitable meaning. From this it follows immediately that our earthly existence – since it as such has at most a very doubtful meaning – can be a means to an end for another existence.
"Precisely in virtue of the fact that our lives consist in unfulfilled or spoiled potential makes him confident that this lifetime is but a staging ground for things to come. But, again, that is only if the world is rationally structured.
***
"The reasons that he gives to his mother in the letters display his rationalist proclivities and belief that natural science presupposes that intelligibility is fundamental to reality. As he writes in his letter dated 23 July 1961:
"Does one have a reason to assume that the world is rationally organised? I think so. For it is absolutely not chaotic and arbitrary, rather – as natural science demonstrates – there reigns in everything the greatest regularity and order. Order is, indeed, a form of rationality.
***
"When seeking meaning, we find that the world is legible to us. And when paying attention, we find patterns of regularity that allow us to predict the future. For Gödel, reason was evident in the world because this order is discoverable.
***
"Gödel believed the world’s deep, rational structure and the soul’s postmortem existence depend on the falsity of materialism, the philosophical view that all truth is necessarily determined by physical facts. In an unpublished paper from around 1961, Gödel asserts that ‘materialism is inclined to regard the world as an unordered and therefore meaningless heap of atoms.’
***
"Despite living in a materialist age, Gödel was convinced that materialism was false, and thought further that his incompleteness theorems showed it to be highly unlikely.
"The incompleteness theorems proved (in broad strokes) that, for any consistent formal system (for example, mathematical and logical), there will be truths that cannot be demonstrated within the system by its own axioms and rules of inference. Hence any consistent system will inevitably be incomplete.
***
"Gödel showed that no formal mathematical system could ever do so or prove definitively by its own standards that it was free of contradiction. And insights discovered about these systems – for instance, that certain problems are truly non-demonstrable within them – are evident to us through reasoning. From this, Gödel concluded that the human mind transcends any finite formal system of axioms and rules of inference.
***
"Gödel thought the theorem’s results dealt a heavy blow to the materialistic worldview. If the mind is irreducible to the physical parts of the brain, and mathematics reveals a rationally accessible structure beyond physical phenomena, then an alternative worldview should be sought that is more rationalistic and open to truths that cannot be tested by the senses. Such a perspective could endorse a rationally organised world and be open to the possibility of life after death.
***
"Gödel thought the theorem’s results dealt a heavy blow to the materialistic worldview. If the mind is irreducible to the physical parts of the brain, and mathematics reveals a rationally accessible structure beyond physical phenomena, then an alternative worldview should be sought that is more rationalistic and open to truths that cannot be tested by the senses. Such a perspective could endorse a rationally organised world and be open to the possibility of life after death.
Continued
Afterlife: Kurt Godel's thoughts II
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 02, 2024, 16:45 (108 days ago) @ David Turell
repeated:" Gödel thought the theorem’s results dealt a heavy blow to the materialistic worldview. If the mind is irreducible to the physical parts of the brain, and mathematics reveals a rationally accessible structure beyond physical phenomena, then an alternative worldview should be sought that is more rationalistic and open to truths that cannot be tested by the senses. Such a perspective could endorse a rationally organised world and be open to the possibility of life after death.
***
"It is first important to explain what Gödel meant by an ‘essential’ property. We have, of course, many properties. I have the property, for example, of standing in a relationship of self-identity (I am not you), of being a US citizen, and of enjoying the horror genre. Although there is no unanimity on exactly how to understand Gödel’s use of ‘essential’, his ontological proof for the existence of God includes a definition of what he means by an essential property. According to that definition, a property is essential of something if it stands in necessary connection with the rest of its properties such that, if one possesses said property, then one necessarily possesses all its other properties. It follows that every individual has an individuated essence, or as Gödel notes in the handwritten draft of the proof: ‘any two essences of x are nec. [sic] equivalent.’ Gödel, like Leibniz, believed that each individual possessed a uniquely determinable essence.
***
"He thought all human beings are destined for an afterlife because they all share a property in virtue of their being human. There are sets of necessary properties that hang together and that are interrelated across individuals such that the possession of this set would entail something being the kind of thing it is. In his ontological proof, for example, he defines a ‘God-like’ being as one that must possess every positive property. As for human beings, I am a human being in virtue of possessing a kind-specific set of properties that all human beings possess necessarily and that at least some of which are completely unique to us (just as only a God-like being can have the property of possessing every positive property). (my bolds)
***
"So what essentially human property points towards a destiny beyond this world? Gödel’s answer: the human ability to learn, and specifically the ability to learn from our mistakes in a way that gives life more meaning. For Gödel, this property hangs necessarily together with the property of being rational. While he admits that animals and plants can learn through trial and error to discover better means for achieving an end, there is a qualitative difference between animals and human beings for whom learning can elevate one into a higher plane of meaning. This is the heart of Gödel’s rationale for ascribing immortality to human beings. In the 14 August 1961 letter, Gödel writes:
"Only the human being can come into a better existence through learning, that is, give his life more meaning. One, and often the only, method to learn arises from doing something false the first time. And that occurs of course in this world truly in abundant quantity.
***
"An intriguing feature of Gödel’s theological worldview is his belief that our growth into fully rational beings occurs not as new incarnations in this world, but rather in a distinct future world:
"In particular, one must imagine that the ‘learning’ occurs in great part first in the next world, namely, in that we remember our experiences from this world and come to understand them really for the first time, so that our this-worldly experiences are – so to speak – only the raw material for learning.
"And he elaborates further:
"Moreover one must of course assume that our understanding there will be substantially better than here, so that we can recognise everything of importance with the same infallible certainty as 2 x 2 = 4, where deception is objectively impossible.
"The next world, therefore, must be one that liberates us from our current, earthly limitations. Rather than recycling back into another earthly body, we must become beings with the capacity to learn from memories that are latently brought along into our future, higher state of being.
***
"Indeed, he arrived at his position through reasoning alone, and thinks that his convictions will eventually be shown to be ‘thoroughly compatible with all known facts’. It is in this context that he further presents a defence of religion, recognising a rational core to it, which he claims is often maligned by philosophers and undermined by bad religious institutions:
"N.B. the current philosophy curriculum doesn’t help much in understanding such questions since 90 per cent of contemporary philosophers see their primary objective as knocking religion out of people’s heads, and thereby work the same as bad churches."
Comment: a valuable essay about one of the greatest thinkers of the last century. Obviously very religious. Note he views God as possessing every positive property. I doubt he would recognize dhw's forms of God. His thinking involves a recognition of human exceptionalism as demanding a further completeness in a future existence.
Afterlife
by BBella , Monday, January 21, 2013, 05:00 (4107 days ago) @ dhw
And if it's possible to visit places, commune with people, perceive, and feel emotions (as NDE'rs appear to do), then all options remain open, good and bad: Mahler's 2nd and the screams of the tormented.-I can imagine, that on a place like Earth, where so much negative energy abounds, there might be abominable, lower level, unevolved energy, that many people become susceptible to when they experience certain levels of emotion here. Which may explain why Earth is in an evolutionary process - to process this lower level energy. But, to my thinking, this energy is not accessible as a place to go, in the sense that a soul can go there, it's just energy. And when a soul leaves Earth, through death, they transcend this energy, leaving it behind, and so are no longer susceptible to it. Of course, this is how I would like it to be...not saying this is how it is.