Is Astral Projection Real?

A lucid afterlife in dreamland would be cool. But if even with one functional brain the dreamer can have trouble maintaining his lucidness, how can we expect to have any sort of consciousness without one?

I'm not aiming to assassinate any beliefs here. I'm just putting a thought out there in my own pragmatic way.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Summerlander wrote: A lucid afterlife in dreamland would be cool.

That's basically what I believe, only a collective version.

We would probably all agree that in order for an afterlife to be possible, our consciousness must exist separately from our brains. This has not been proven scientifically for sure, so it's only speculation. I don't know if that's related to why lucid dreaming is so hard.

However unlikely an afterlife might seem in the face of neuroscientific evidence, you are right, it has not been ruled out. In fact, some scientists leave the door open. If there is one, I do not think it will be one where the deceased find God, deities, or devils. I don't think it is necessarily a happy reunion with lost loved ones either. If there is something after death, it might be something previously unimagined. I also don't think we would remember the life we lived and we probably would feel different as an individual, too.

Still, the existence of an afterlife does not require God or deities. I find the God concept more unacceptable. My atheism is justified by many points that would take too long to type but I will list Epicurean questions once pointed out by David Hume:

• "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"*

David Hume... via Summerlander wrote: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

I love when pure logic and reason is used. How can anybody possibly refute this?

When it comes to afterlife, or in other words, consciousness existing beyond a physical and measurable brain..... that gets complicated because my knowledge of how it all works is limited.

But I like Hume's style. I'll think about it more and see if it can be answered with a series of "IF.... THEN.... Statements" It truly is the best way.

Summerlander wrote: If there is one, I do not think it will be one where the deceased find God, deities, or devils. I don't think it is necessarily a happy reunion with lost loved ones either. If there is something after death, it might be something previously unimagined. I also don't think we would remember the life we lived and we probably would feel different as an individual, too.

Agree with everything here. I think there might be some kind of a "resource pool" that we are part of, but I definitely don't believe in the traditional concept of "God". I also don't think we would remember our lives here and that our identity is something more or different than person we are here. If there is an afterlife, it would seem likely that this life is some sort of vehicle we are just using to get from one place to another.

Summerlander wrote:

Still, the existence of an afterlife does not require God or deities. I find the God concept more unacceptable. My atheism is justified by many points that would take too long to type but I will list Epicurean questions once pointed out by David Hume:

• "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"*

I don't believe in the traditional religious concept of "God" or "good" and "evil", all of which I think are human inventions that attempt to simplify things. So the argument of "how could God allow evil" never made sense to me. Even when I believed in the traditional God, I never assumed that God would protect humans from their own stupidity, that would actually be counterproductive, they need to learn. I see humans as making mistakes, not being "evil" as I did when I was a christian. But I think a lot of Christianity (the biggest religion here in the U.S.) is so hypocritical and has nothing to do with what Jesus stood for anyway. They are so aligned with the conservative right wing here in the U.S., so involved in politics. Their gun toting, warmongering, anti-socialist agenda has almost nothing to do with Jesus Christ, that's for sure.

lucidinthe sky wrote: I never assumed that God would protect humans from their own stupidity, that would actually be counterproductive, they need to learn.

This is just like parenting. I believe that all gods in all cultures stem from a psychological need to explain and learn about our surroundings which we get from our mothers and fathers. So we create gods in our own image to explain it and give them these parental personalities. Some are mothers figures, some are father figures. (Or in Greece and Rome is was like a soap opera for entertainment and story telling. Man! They had some family issues!). (There's some father son issues in the Bible too!) Sorry if I'm blasphemous. :lol:

But at the core of all this is trying to understand what happens after we die. That is important for those who think too much. And it also relates to the notion of an "astral plane" and collective consciousness and all this stuff. Forget all you thought you knew and look at reality again with no beliefs. If possible that's the best way to look at it fresh again.

The religious say that God created man is own image, but actually the opposite is true. Man creates God in his own image so you get this concept of a very human-like god, only with superpowers. And yes it is a very parental type of image, you have God the Father, God the Son, etc. I don't know about other religions, but Christianity is full of this parental kind of God. Personally, I think that religion, God, good and evil was meant to only be starting place, it is very much like a child/parent point of view. If we are spiritual beings, I would think we are at some point supposed to "grow up" and become more mature.

HAGART wrote: Forget all you thought you knew and look at reality again with no beliefs. If possible that's the best way to look at it fresh again.

I do this on a regular basis and it's actually quite a powerful experience for me. Having a fixed set of beliefs to me is very limiting, maybe what comes next is whatever you want it to be. And that's where it comes back to, no surprise, Lucid Dreams!

I see we more or less agree on the God debate. I just hope we don't tread on anyone's toes with our strong posts.

Even so, I might not believe in either but I must admit that astral projection makes more sense than a God, the creator.

One can argue that He could be teaching us, but, why can't He just do it in the blink of an eye and makes see His way? Oh, that's right! He didn't want us eating from the tree of knowledge! We also must pray and kneel before Him to beg like slaves if we want His approval and wish for our lives to run smoothly.

Meanwhile, Neo downloads kung fu into his brain in a matter of seconds, something scientists say can happen in principle. So can the Total Recall scenario where we can have any identity or memories we want.

Why couldn't God just make us all see His light? Why condemn some sinners with eternal damnation when He made them sinful in the first place? Why not just change them and make them good? He is omnipotent, isnt He?

Hence why God is man-made, a concept that shoots itself in the foot. In the Bible, He is not only too human, He appears to possess all the horrible traits an individual could have: He is homicidal, genocidal, selfish, jealous, sadistic, immoral, amoral, a bit dim, negligent, condones child rape and abuse, His tests aren't funny and are unnecessary (why test if He knows everything), gambles with human life (wager with Satan) and has favourites among His children. Also, He sends His only "begotten" son to purge all of mankind's sins. And innocent man made to pay the price of torture and the death penalty while criminals get away with it scott free.

That is the opposite of justice, is it not? Why follow a God who orders you around like a dictator and threatens you with hell whilst bribing you with a heaven? No thanks.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

I think the only ones reading this far in the thread are a select few, so we don't have to walk on eggshells quite so much. I agree with all the atheistic religious views, but I'm still agnostic because of a few things. I am really just a dumb monkey after all. :roll: :lol: And we all are!

Religion aside, let's get back to what's more important. I have met people in my lucid dreams that seem to be more knowing than I am. They seem omniscient, and seem self aware and they don't always take on the form of people and sometimes they arrive in groups.

I have anecdotal stories of this. I personally think that they are aspects of my own unexplored mind, but they really make you wonder. **I have never felt more 'spiritual' or 'closer to God' than when I am around them. **

This was my question to Rebecca in another post: How do you explain a self aware dream character separate from yourself in a lucid dream?

(I start to question who is 'yourself' in that sentence........... it gets deep) :ugeek:

If someone can prove that they are NOT coming from my own mind, then that would prove that there IS such a thing as extraterrestrial deities or guardian angels or astral planes. It just means that I am not who I thought I was and there is a deeper level to my psychosis.... er I mean psychology! :lol:

I would love to prove it one way or another beyond a shadow of a doubt. What would Hume say, because that was brilliant. I should ask a DC in a dream and see what they themselves say. (They've been avoiding me ever since I tried exploring THEIR minds and it's been a few months!) I've been trying to figure this out though. I am a confused oneironaut! But I feel I'm on to something.... :idea:

(MY EDIT: I messed up with some "Not's" and "No's" and made a double negative. Now it almost makes sense.... :lol: I wish I could word things better, and will work on that!)

HAGART wrote: Religion aside, let's get back to what's more important. I have met people in my lucid dreams that seem to be more knowing than I am. They seem omniscient, and seem self aware and they don't always take on the form of people and sometimes they arrive in groups.

I have anecdotal stories of this. I personally think that they are aspects of my own unexplored mind, but they really make you wonder. **I have never felt more 'spiritual' or 'closer to God' than when I am around them. **

As you know, I have this experience too. I also have DCs that show up and will just hold my hand or hug me and it feels incredibly good in a "spiritual" way. They can still be parts of ourselves and maybe at the same be connected to something else. Maybe they are our "interfaces" with ...

Let's explore and find out.

Summerlander wrote: Why follow a God who orders you around like a dictator and threatens you with hell whilst bribing you with a heaven? No thanks.

Because pain and pleasure are the two main driving forces that motivate people to do what you want. Carrot and stick approach. If your goal is to keep people in line, this is actually a pretty good way to do it. Do what I want, get a reward in heaven, do something I don't want, burn in hell. Fear can be used effectively to keep order and control people, every dictator knows this.

I have gone a step further and realized that these things called emotions drive me like a horse through life. If I do good it gives me a reward...."Ahhh... pleasure.... a delicious carrot... yum!" (Feel good. Pat on the back.) If I do bad it punishes me.... "Ow! is that a spur in my side? How rude!" (Feel guilt. I'll do better next time!)

Emotions drive us and parent us. And we learn through trial and error. But then sometimes I, and maybe others, step away and question why the carrot is delicious at all and what is 'pain', and who is driving this horse! Who's the driver and puppet master?

And this is very important to lucid dreams because I believe our own emotions are crucial in any success or failure that we want to achieve in that state of mind. Don't care and it's easy. Fear it, and it won't happen.

But who's the true driver? Who's controlling it? Am I just a puppet? (I have a lot of theories, but that takes a whole new thread and maybe even a life long book. But that's been a challenge of mine since even before I was an avid lucid dreamer.)

Summerlander wrote: I see we more or less agree on the God debate. I just hope we don't tread on anyone's toes with our strong posts.

Even so, I might not believe in either but I must admit that astral projection makes more sense than a God, the creator.

One can argue that He could be teaching us, but, why can't He just do it in the blink of an eye and makes see His way? Oh, that's right! He didn't want us eating from the tree of knowledge! We also must pray and kneel before Him to beg like slaves if we want His approval and wish for our lives to run smoothly.

Meanwhile, Neo downloads kung fu into his brain in a matter of seconds, something scientists say can happen in principle. So can the Total Recall scenario where we can have any identity or memories we want.

Why couldn't God just make us all see His light? Why condemn some sinners with eternal damnation when He made them sinful in the first place? Why not just change them and make them good? He is omnipotent, isnt He?

Hence why God is man-made, a concept that shoots itself in the foot. In the Bible, He is not only too human, He appears to possess all the horrible traits an individual could have: He is homicidal, genocidal, selfish, jealous, sadistic, immoral, amoral, a bit dim, negligent, condones child rape and abuse, His tests aren't funny and are unnecessary (why test if He knows everything), gambles with human life (wager with Satan) and has favourites among His children. Also, He sends His only "begotten" son to purge all of mankind's sins. And innocent man made to pay the price of torture and the death penalty while criminals get away with it scott free.

That is the opposite of justice, is it not? Why follow a God who orders you around like a dictator and threatens you with hell whilst bribing you with a heaven? No thanks.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

We can't trust Christanity, or it's stories. It's like the telephone game, Jesus started it, but since him; they've managed to get completely different messages and stories over the years. No religion has it right, but they are on the right track.

I imagine God as something our brains can't quite comprehend. It's no man that suffers from all the traits you listed above. God is all, he's me, he's you, he's the tree outside, he's the love insides us. But how can we truly understand that? "God is all". And I can't really, but it just makes sense from a right brained perspective. To understand God from a left brained perspective, at this time, is impossible. Maybe one day though, with the powerful tool of science:) And I have a quote to answer to your question.

"You must get through rain before the sunlight."

I also am much more accepting of these debates, thank you for toning it down a bit, these are good talks, I like this. I am not close minded:)

Also I don't believe in hell, God sends all his children to the same place. The only "hell" is here on earth, and we create that, not god. I believe when we die, we enter into a non lucid dream that perfectly replicates physical reality. In this physical reality dream, we subcontiously create a reality for ourselves, which would all be based on how we lived our physical life.

If you created a good physical life, you create a good dream, a "heaven". If you created a bad physical life, you create a bad a dream, a "hell".

Organized religion, is wrong on A LOT of things. And that's what happens when one person, who is supposedly better then everyone else, preaches us HIS beliefs to the ignorant masses. [ Post made via iPhone ] Image

To me, the reason for our existence is more a question of "how" rather than "why". We are here because the cosmological constant of our universe permitted the emergence of galaxies and their evolution led to our creation. If the energy of this cosmological constant was any higher or lower, we would not exist. It isn't hard to conceive the existence of other universes, but, not all of them have necessarily stumbled upon life. No God involved whatsoever. Any way, this is my worldview and I don't expect you to agree with it. One is free to call the universe and everything in it "God" if they wish. I won't think any less of you. Spinoza was someone I admire and he held a pantheistic belief.

From a scientific point of view, our place in the Milky Way happens to be an ideal breeding ground for abundant life - at least the Goldilocks zone that the Earth happens to be in. Our planet's tilt is also favourable for our life to endure and evolve for a long time. It is like a warm dirty surface where bacteria thrive the most. There is probably intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, but you can bet that Earth is like a needle in a haystack. The life we may find elsewhere may be mostly bacteria, then a percentage will succeed in evolving animal-like or plant-like life before natural annihilation, and, an even smaller portion will have evolved intelligent life like our own or even more advanced.

We must also remember that the life of each human individual here on Earth is microscopically short compared to how old the universe is and how much it will extend ahead. So my philosophy is to make the most of it and learn as much as you can about this wonderful reality while you still can. If there is an emotional gap to be filled deep within me, it is not with the falsehoods of religion or superstition, but rather, science. Even if you are not much for scientific detail or have no interest in becoming versed in scientific knowledge, I bet that you will love keeping up with recent discoveries and breakthroughs.

So, my stance is this: rather than believing in something that has never been proved and seems less likely the more we learn about the nature of things, why not take heed of what has been established already and wonder about the things that have not been solved yet? I'd rather listen to logic, reason without jumping to conclusions, and think freely for myself without being told what to believe if you catch my drift. The only life I am sure of is this one so I'm not going to ignore it or think less of it as I await in the promise of another hypothetical one born from wish-wash.

Death is coming whether we like it or not. The way I deal with it is by realising that I was 'dead' in the times of Aristotle, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and Kurt Godel and wasn't bothered by it one bit. And, whilst considering myself lucky to live in this amazingly technological age of science, one day I will go back to that non-existent state. The only thing I fear is a slow and painful process of dying. If I'm lucky, the process will be short. But death itself should not worry us because, after all, as far as I know, we won't know that we are dead. There will be no self to know. I often think of the following quotes among other witty ones:

"Life is hard. Then you die. Then they throw dirt in your face. Then the worms eat you. Be grateful it happens in that order."

• David Gerrold

"The fear of death is the most unjustified of all fears, for there's no risk of accident for someone who is dead."

• Albert Einstein

And finally, ask yourself if you would really like to live forever. Imagine an eternity where you can do everything you can possibly think of an infinite number of times. You would get bored shitless to the point of losing your mind. Imagine even thinking the same thoughts and feeling like there is no escape from the madness, as you realise that your eternity gradually kills the new and exciting. You would beg for a release... a release from the pain of being conscious for such a long time. I'm just putting this thought out there...

Now imagine that when you die, everything ceases and you are free from all experience... even your self. Remember those times when you sleep like a log. Well, to be dead is to be beyond that. And the amazing thing is that, while you are alive in deep meditation, you can experience a still-mind, free of concepts, and the realisation of one being intrinsically empty can be achieved. In meditation I realised that the less thoughts I had, the more blissful it got.

The Buddha came to a profound realisation in his meditative practice. He found that he could be anything in his mind, but, most profoundly, he realised that those concepts came from the intrinsic nothing inherent in all of us. The self, he found, is a strong illusion.

Summerlander wrote: And finally, ask yourself if you would really like to live forever. Imagine an eternity where you can do everything you can possibly think of an infinite number of times. You would get bored shitless to the point of losing your mind. Imagine even thinking the same thoughts and feeling like there is no escape from the madness, as you realise that your eternity gradually kills the new and exciting. You would beg for a release... a release from the pain of being conscious for such a long time. I'm just putting this thought out there...

I think this a really good point, and I often wonder this too. Maybe there aren't any struggles or challenges in that place we go to after life, my guess is that's true. Then perhaps it's just a temporary resting place, personally the idea of a vacation from this sounds very appealing to me :) And maybe those who don't want that just basically make a U-turn and go right back something like this.

So then as you say, people who go to that place eventually get bored and need more of challenge (to me this is a desire for growth which comes through challenges) so we go to somewhere else, like for example right where we are now.

Interesting view, lucid. If that is the case, rebirth means forgetting having been previously conscious and thus the mystery of life and death is perpetual.

At least there are ways around it to avoid mental torture. Unless, of course, reincarnation isn't true and we face the agony of perpetual consciousness without escape.

Anyway, I think we can all agree here that the Biblical God is a load of cobblers. I just found this video: :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6-zi25GgVE

Imagine an eternity where you can do everything you can possibly think of an infinite number of times. You would get bored shitless to the point of losing your mind

I dont think it would be like that and you are framing another existence with similar properties as this one.

I would expect that eternity would not be long enough to explore another existence and that our minds or whats left will form up our new reality. Imagine if what you think formed you world and therefore your experience of it - just like in this one and it would be up to you to be happy, excited or bored. In the end its all your choice

In a reality with endless possibilities, the idea of endless time sounds really good. In a new reality where we can create, explore, experience things that are even beyond anything we could imagine or are capable of here on Earth, boredom may not ever happen.

I seldom get bored in this existence, which to me is fairly limited. Just look how big our universe is, and we are just on this tiny speck called Earth, orbiting one star among billions in a sea of galaxies that may be more than a billion. I can spend hours looking at other galaxies in my telescope and not even move it more than a few degrees in the sky. We shouldn't limit our expectations to what we can imagine now.

I seldom get bored in this existence

Same and that is how I look at it. If after all the time we have spent on this earth we are still looking and discovering then I would expect an unbounded reality to be the same + some

I look forward to it but also think that how you are or how you think and live will make you world here there or anywhere

I would like a telescope, what are you using and how much detail can you see with it?

I wonder if you guys will be saying that when you are older. I've seen some people in their 90s who are pretty fed up. Again, if in an eternal afterlife we never get bored because our stream of experience is unlike the earthly one then I assume that we would have a terrible memory in order to be able to have novelty for all time.

Imagine that you could relive this life over and over again and remember it every time. Csn you honestly tell me that you eould never get bored? Or imagine dropping an object and picking it up to drop it again and so on for eternity. I don't think it's a matter of choice to not get bored. I think everyone has a threshold and everyone breaks.

Living forever would plague you to ask the same question an infinite number of times: What haven't I done yet?

And if you don't feel the need to ask such question and are quite happy with repetition, if you don't feel like you are wasting your time by not bothering to find novelty as you struggle to stretch your imagination beyond what you have already been exposed to, then I take my hat off to you...

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Summerlander wrote: I wonder if you guys will be saying that when you are older. I've seen some people in their 90s who are pretty fed up.

Actually, I'm 56 now and I don't need to wait to be fed up. I'm pretty much fed up right now.

Summerlander wrote: Again, if in an eternal afterlife we never get bored because our stream of experience is unlike the earthly one then I assume that we would have a terrible memory in order to be able to have novelty for all time.

Or, there is just so much more there. We shouldn't limit ourselves to only that which we can imagine right now. I think you have helped me with this: I'm thinking that's it's really best not to have any kind of beliefs really. They are all limiting in some way. Why not start with a blank slate and just be open to all possibilities?

Summerlander wrote:

Imagine that you could relive this life over and over again and remember it every time. Csn you honestly tell me that you eould never get bored? Or imagine dropping an object and picking it up to drop it again and so on for eternity. I don't think it's a matter of choice to not get bored. I think everyone has a threshold and everyone breaks.

Living forever would plague you to ask the same question an infinite number of times: What haven't I done yet?

And if you don't feel the need to ask such question and are quite happy with repetition, if you don't feel like you are wasting your time by not bothering to find novelty as you struggle to stretch your imagination beyond what you have already been exposed to, then I take my hat off to you...

You are thinking in terms of the limitations we deal with here and they definitely exist. Things in our life here are finite and still more than we can experience in our short lives. I'm sure I would get bored on this planet in a human life existence long before we even got close to eternity.

Point taken. But here and now is all I know and it's the only thing I can be sure of. The limitations are real. And what if our conscious awareness is also something that is limited and coming to an end (which in all likelihood I think it is)?

I don't want to be a naysayer but there is no reason to rule out an afterlife of boredom or one that is similar to earthly experience just as there is no good reason to rule out a real death (unconsciousness/non-existence).

I've made peace with the last strong possibility. If I am as unconscious as I think I was before I was born, I am no longer susceptible to worry, fear, death, desperation, ego-preservation, bad thoughts, and no longer feel the need to chase happiness or happy dream. If I am completely absent from the realm of experience, I am completely free even from myself. Ergo, there is no "I" any more.

I think that is the best bed and I am glad it seems to be the most likely scenario.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

To conclude, if dead means dead then no accidents can happen to the dead. I think Einstein said something along those lines once. I don't think consciousness can survive physical death when we observe on the spectrum of consciousness/unconsciousness death appears to be a point of no return right at the latter's end. And we see what degenerate cerebral illnesses can do to the living too. It can take so much away.

So yeah, I will remain sceptic and unconvinced until the end. We don't even know what it's like to be the next person let alone a bat. No beliefs? Totally agree with you. Thus I don't believe in astral planes or any form of afterlife. I do, however, think it's justified to say that life after death appears to be very unlikely based on scientific evidence.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Summerlander wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6-zi25GgVE

I watched that and it was hilarious. There are others too by the same makers. If you like South Park and dirty humor then you'll love this. They exaggerate to prove a point using humor.

If you want to take a break and put your feet up for ten minutes, listen to this guru: George Carlin :lol: . He talks about death and the afterlife in this bit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PiZSFIVFiU (Just copy paste of course and it's free!)

Belief is where I have big problems too! :mrgreen:

Well, I have decided to post my conclusion based on everything that has been said here. This conclusion is also based on a train of thought that has been developed for some time and this is where I currently stand on the matter of souls, hereafters, and astral projection. Perhaps others can read the whole thread and express their final thoughts too? :idea:

I have been pondering over the afterlife concept for a long time now, and, if someone was to ask me if there is an afterlife, my answer would be: let’s review the evidence to date. I can’t be sure of anything solely on a strong feeling which could, without my awareness, be fundamentally illusory - and lucid dreaming is no reason to start believing. I suspect that, when we die, we go back to being in the same state that we were before we were born, whether existent or non-existent.

Many people fantasise about an afterlife of otherworldly exploration, contact with other beings and the eventuation of their wishes. Lucid dreams are often surmised to be a glimpse of the immediate afterlife even though it is very much a condition of being alive in which the brain is active - more so than the delta waves of deep dreamless sleep - and the cerebral areas associated with waking states are often found to be functional during lucidity.

If death really is the cessation of being - and thus the end of experience and cognition - then it is also the end of suffering. You won’t know that you are dead, you won’t know that you are not suffering, you won’t know that you do not perceive, and you won’t know anything. In conclusion: there is no “I”! People find this hard to imagine and some even go as far as to say that such notion is more incredible than the idea of an afterlife in the spirit realms. Some even say that non-existence makes no sense and put forth all sorts of non sequiturs - which usually derive from overlooking or underestimating cerebral complexity and potential - in their desperate struggle to reimpose vitalism.

But the truth is that we were dead before we were born, ergo, we should have a good idea of what death entails and common sense tells us that it is the absolute opposite of life. This could mean that death is simply going back to the pre-birth state. The fact that all our mental properties can be destroyed with the expunction of specific brain parts favours the abnegation of a spiritual, and thus conscious, afterlife. Either there is no afterlife or this one is fraught with deceased individuals possessing all the brain deficits.

Hypothetically speaking, what constitutes us becomes something else which gives rise to the possibility of rebirth. I’ll use the computer analogy in that, if death means deletion of a file (sentient being), the information it contains goes in the recycle bin, where, overtime, the data that constitutes it gets reconfigured. Being absent from life or any sort of interaction is a notion that can convey a sense of much needed rest from the living perspective, but, in death, you are not even resting - you are beyond that!

When something as important as the cerebral cortex is damaged, for example, one may very easily slip into a long-term coma. Individuals who have woken up from these have often been oblivious to how much time had passed due to their lapse in consciousness. Because they were unaware of the time that passed while unconscious, the coma state from their perspective was losing their senses in one moment and regaining awareness the next. Confusion manifests as soon as they become conscious. Suffering usually begins when they realise how much time has passed, how much they’ve missed, and how things have changed. Their nightmare begins in consciousness and effort is required to get used to their newfound status of loss and overcome their problems. If death is the cessation of being, then it is also the end of all problems. One should not, however, see death as an escape from an apparently harsh reality and commit suicide, as this could be psychologically detrimental to loved ones and one should make the most of life and be the best person one can be.

On the other hand, consciousness could survive death if we consider the possibility that the existence of “I” is not dependent upon brain or bodily functions, and that thoughts may operate on another frequency of reality - however, there is no evidence for this and the solid evidence available seems to point in the opposite direction. An afterlife then, would perpetuate experience and bring everything that comes with it. Do we tap into this hypothetical frequency of reality when we induce lucid dreams, or is it all an illusion produced by electrochemical functions of the brain?

Another theory, which seems somewhat more feasible to me, is one which completely discards esoteric cosmology, or the existence of a soul for that matter, but holds the twist that we can return to consciousness after death as a different life form. This does not involve a spirit reincarnating, but rather, the natural revival of our awareness if the universe stumbles upon the right coordinates in space. In this theory, the universe intrinsically holds us in a pristine unconscious state (at death we go back to being zero) until the chance presents itself for us to become something else.

But, am I a fatalist if I feel that, considering all the evidence available, we die and that’s it? Not necessarily. Science could one day render us immortal in our present physical condition, which, in my opinion, is the only possible condition to be in as a living human being. But I also think death is a blessing in disguise. Would you really want to live forever? Think about the mental torture as you run out of things to do and think and gradually become bored of repeating the same experiences an infinite number of times. Soon you’d be saying, “Get me out of here before I lose my mind!” If you don’t think life can become boring after living for a long time spare a thought for those centenary folks who are pretty fed up.

If the stream of experience in a posthumous eternal life is different to the earthly one to the extent that tedium doesn’t enter the equation then I assume that we’d have bad memories preventing the death of novelty. And I don’t think it’s a matter of choice to not get bored either. Everyone has a threshold and everybody breaks. Like I said, living forever would plague one to ask the same question an infinite number of times: “What haven’t I done yet?” If you don’t feel the need to ask such question and are quite happy with repetition, if you don’t feel like you are wasting your time by not bothering to find novelty as you struggle to stretch your imagination beyond what you have already been exposed to, then hats off to you.

When it comes to the hereafter, here and now is all I know and the only thing I can be sure of. The limitations in the realm of the living are real enough. I don’t want to be a naysayer, but, even if there is an afterlife, there is no reason to assume that it will be good. We can’t even rule out a version of extreme boredom or one that is similar to earthly experience just as there is no good reason to rule out real death (unconsciousness/non-existence). I’ve made my peace with the last strong possibility. If I am as unconscious at death as I think I was before birth, I am no longer susceptible to worry, fear, desperation, ego-preservation, bad thoughts, and death itself. I no longer feel the need to chase my needs and wants in order to survive and be happy simultaneously. If I am completely absent from the realm of experience, I am completely free even from myself. Ergo, there is no “I” anymore. I think it’s the best scenario, because, if dead means dead then the deceased are immune to any further mishaps.

I don’t think consciousness can survive physical death when we observe a real dichotomy in cerebral activity indicative of a spectrum where sharp consciousness lies at one end, unconsciousness the other, and death appearing to be the point of no return right at the latter’s end. (Not to mention the degenerate cerebral illnesses that can take away so much from the living.) To claim, without evidence, that the physical universe is localised somewhere in reference to someplace “non-local” (as some dualist mumbo jumbo goes), or lying outside of it, and assuming such hypothetical realm to be the land where the dead consciously dwell, is a temerarious statement to make. Such claim is the equivalent of proposing that a perspective outside space and time is possible. Think about this proposal for a minute. How can one acquire such perspective when there is no time, let alone space, to house the observer?

Space and time are properties of the universe itself and thus a coherent outside perspective is undoable. Unless, of course, there is space and time outside (or beyond) the universe - in which case it wouldn’t be outside it, but rather, an extension of physical reality (and since the dead have expired their conscious living existence in such reality, as one only gets one shot in physicality, they cannot exist anywhere else). Let’s not forget that space itself, even as the purest of vacuums, is still something physical and containing energy: it’s abuzz with quantum particles. Thus, something outside of the universe with the same properties would be an extension of physical reality itself, if not a continuation of our observable universe, and therefore, a part of all there is.

We’d be forced to define “universe” as “observable universe” and the word “outside” almost loses its application when we see that the acquired perspective is still encompassed the tangible structure that constitutes everything. The very essence of space and time, it seems, is what defines us as illusory selves and observers. If the “outsider” perspective (meaning outside “all there is”) could be attained, we would be able to see, within a little portion of the universal structure, our birth at one end and our corpse at the other. This implies that time, as something that passes, is an illusion, and that past, present, and future (or any point within the space-time structure) is equally real. From the impossible outside-of-it-all perspective, one would be able to see all the frames of space (with all their objects) that are not synchronised (as we say, “occurring at different times”).

Within the universe, time is like a river that flows one way. Hypothetically outside of it, however, one must assume that such illusion is shattered. Nothing flows, it is all static. Perspective and perception is everything when arriving at conclusions. In a similar vein, memory most likely helps to produce the illusion of a continuous self. What seems intuitively real to us may not be so objectively. Hence the need to think outside the box sometimes.