Life after death?
Saw this on I Love Science on Face Book.....
Bright lights, warmth, detachment from the body, life flashbacks, encounters with spirits; these are all things that thousands, perhaps even millions of people have reported when they have approached death. These so-called near-death-experiences (NDEs) are widely recognized phenomena, but they have been met with considerable skepticism among the medical and scientific community and many consider them to be merely hallucinatory or illusory in nature.
Despite the considerable number of anecdotal reports on NDEs, which seem to be increasing in frequency because of developments in cardiac resuscitation techniques, very few objective studies into these experiences exist. But now, researchers from the University of Southampton have just completed a four-year international study on over 2,000 cardiac arrest patients, and it’s given us a fascinating insight into this eerie topic.
As described in Resuscitation, the AWARE (awareness during resuscitation) study set out to examine the broad range of awareness and mental experiences associated with cardiac arrest. They tested the validity of the reported experiences using objective markers to determine whether the claims corresponded to actual events or hallucinations.
Of the 2,060 patients enrolled in the study, 330 survived and 140 were able to complete structured interviews about their memories of the event. They found that 39% of these individuals described some awareness of the time preceding resuscitation, i.e. when their hearts had stopped beating. The majority of these patients, however, did not have specific memories of the event, suggesting that many people do indeed have mental activity during cardiac arrest, but lose their memories after recovery. According to lead author Dr. Parnia, this could be due to brain injury or sedative drugs.
For example, ketamine—a dissociative anesthetic used for sedation and general anesthesia—has been known to make users feel a strong sense of detachment from their bodies and a sense of peace or joy. The induced state is often described as similar to that of near-death experiences.
A previous study that examined the brain activity of seven critically ill patients removed from life support found a spike of neural activity at or near the time of death. The lead author of the study reported that seizures in the memory regions of the patient's brain could be responsible for NDEs.
Although the patients in the current study could not recall specific details, many had memories with specific themes. According to the National Post, 20% said they felt peaceful and almost one third felt that time had either slowed down or sped up. Some had tranquil experiences and saw bright lights and animals, whereas others felt fear and even recounted the feeling of being dragged through deep water.
**Interestingly, 13% of these individuals felt separated from their bodies, and one man recalled leaving his body entirely and watching his resuscitation from the corner of the room. It took three minutes to start this man’s heart again, but he could describe specific details of both the staff and the procedure. He also recalled two beeps from a machine that only makes noise every three minutes. **
“We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating,” Dr. Parnia told National Post. “But in this case conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn’t beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20-30 seconds after the heart has stopped.”
Although only 2% of patients could explicitly recall ‘seeing’ or ‘hearing’ actual events, because the details were consistent with verified events, it is impossible to discredit them at this stage and more work is needed.
[Via University of Southampton, Resuscitation, and National Post]
Sorry, but I sometimes have Present Probability Lucid Dreams through my Dream Body controlled WILDs, so NDEs aren't exactly going to prove ESP, because Lucid Dream Probability happens often enough already. Unless you have a Full Spectrum Camera, and actually film activity in the cardiac arrest rooms with it, I am not fully convinced of anything really happening.
In case you didn't know this, there is a chemical in the brain that in rare occasions releases while unconscious and will release at death called DMT. This chemical allows the person to dream/Lucid Dream. Actually there is in fact a reason why the DMT releases right before a person/animal dies no one seems to understand. DMT is actually normally used as a drug that people smoke and many times when people smoke it, they describe similar experiences people have when they have NDEs. This is because when a person's brain dies, their brain releases a huge amount of it just like if they were to smoke it, so basically what the person is experiencing for usually the last time is a very positive drug trip. The dream imagery is usually then seducing the person's consciousness to feel very happy and at peace while the body is permanently shutting down, making the natural process much easier to handle. It also therapeutically those who are frightened or depressed about it feel much more at ease. However, the drug trip only lasts for about 10-15 minutes, and once the drug trip is over, you will slowly fade away into unconsciousness, to sleep forever (I really hope, and if old science doesn't kill me, I will jump onto a rocket, launch into space, and jump into a black hole, and then I will truly sleep forever, I hate immortality). Let me ask you a question, why would you wish for immortality anyway? You would get bored after a while doing the same thing over and over again. And there are several things you should realize about Immortality: One a place that spreads of Eternal Happiness would get really boring after a while: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZBDQtvf59s
Two a place that spreads of Eternal Misery would also get really boring after a while: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zotCodzETBU to 2:04
Three, you know what would happen to our bodies after being immortal for way too long?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvMiz0-nPxs
nesgirl wrote: In case you didn't know this, there is a chemical in the brain that in rare occasions releases while unconscious and will release at death called DMT. This chemical allows the person to dream/Lucid Dream. Actually there is in fact a reason why the DMT releases right before a person/animal dies no one seems to understand. However, the drug trip only lasts for about 10-15 minutes, and once the drug trip is over, you will slowly fade away into unconsciousness, to sleep forever (I really hope, and if old science doesn't kill me, I will jump onto a rocket, launch into space, and jump into a black hole, and then I will truly sleep forever, I hate immortality). Let me ask you a question, why would you wish for immortality anyway? You would get bored after a while doing the same thing over and over again. And there are several things you should realize about Immortality:
IDK, it appears to me that the lack of transport system (blood pumping) would make the spread of and drug into enough of the brain unlikely as a cause for hallucinations you would remember. Odd you think falling into a black hole would be death. Science indicates that as you entered the event horizon time would slow down and the last seconds before being sucked in would basically last forever! Immortal hell? :o Not the way I would wanna go. :oops:
DMT is in fact a chemical that is released in the brain while unconscious or at death. We were doing a study on that a while back. Here is the topic if you don't believe me: http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=14886
There are several different forms of black holes if you did your science correctly. Some black holes will in fact pull you in a lot faster (and you would probably die before being sucked in anyways). I think I would prefer to being sucked into a black hole (even if it did take years) a few years to get sucked to my deaths) and going into permanent unconsciousness than according to your religion and beliefs, going to hades. You know exactly how your religion describes it, and I dread the idea of immortality as is. I think there were a few users on here that dreaded immortality as well, although I don't know if they'd resort to doing the exact same thing as I would. Actually, I would only do this as a resort to end immortality or undead immortality in a story that cursed me with it.
Actually it even says right on TV tropes: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeaderThanDead in the real life section the urban legend is if you want to end Undead or Immortality, you fall or jump into a black hole.
You are missing my point about both topics. 1. Dead people don't bleed, know why? 2. Black holes only come in different sizes but are identical in how they work. So once you reach the event horizon weather big or small you will accelerate to a terminal velocity nearing the speed of light where time will move slower. It is part of Einstein's theory of relativity so I'm just spitting back up science that's a bit beyond me anyways. So blame Einstein if it's wrong. ON second thought blame Steven Hawkins since he said recently black holes don't exist at all. :lol:
buildit wrote: You are missing my point about both topics. 1. Dead people don't bleed, know why? 2. Black holes only come in different sizes but are identical in how they work. So once you reach the event horizon weather big or small you will accelerate to a terminal velocity nearing the speed of light where time will move slower. It is part of Einstein's theory of relativity so I'm just spitting back up science that's a bit beyond me anyways. So blame Einstein if it's wrong. ON second thought blame Steven Hawkins since he said recently black holes don't exist at all. :lol:
- I beg to differ that dead people can't die in media. There is clear evidence in the media that dead people can in fact die a second death: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0UY4tHHb4o Well the ghost of Christmas past sure bled quite a bit when he got shot, and he even got his carcass eaten. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uej3kF8cIhY After Peter Pan gets Curb Stomped, his "Shadow" gets curb stomped, and there's shadow guts all over where he got curb stomped http://videolog.tv/583837 The cats get vacuumed and burned to death as the mouse enjoys himself. And if you are talking about a literal person bleeding after they are dead, they can bleed after death if they are bleeding to begin with. Biology doesn't stop after a person dies, so everything releases out of the person's body, including the blood. Actually that's why corpses smell really bad at first, and it isn't because of decomposition.
- Even as you slow down, the point you are at, your body is getting compressed, so you are getting destroyed. Well it doesn't matter anyways. Because without the necessities needed, you will die pretty quickly anyways. Also if I had a choice of living an eternal life burning in hades and being bothered by others and bothering others, or having a solitary life until I die away from everyone and everything in the middle of space where I would never bother anyone again, I would pick the solitary life.
nesgirl wrote:
buildit wrote:You are missing my point about both topics. 1. Dead people don't bleed, know why? 2. Black holes only come in different sizes but are identical in how they work. So once you reach the event horizon weather big or small you will accelerate to a terminal velocity nearing the speed of light where time will move slower. It is part of Einstein's theory of relativity so I'm just spitting back up science that's a bit beyond me anyways. So blame Einstein if it's wrong. ON second thought blame Steven Hawkins since he said recently black holes don't exist at all. :lol:
- I beg to differ that dead people can't die in media. There is clear evidence in the media that dead people can in fact die a second death: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0UY4tHHb4o Well the ghost of Christmas past sure bled quite a bit when he got shot, and he even got his carcass eaten. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uej3kF8cIhY After Peter Pan gets Curb Stomped, his "Shadow" gets curb stomped, and there's shadow guts all over where he got curb stomped http://videolog.tv/583837 The cats get vacuumed and burned to death as the mouse enjoys himself. And if you are talking about a literal person bleeding after they are dead, they can bleed after death if they are bleeding to begin with. Biology doesn't stop after a person dies, so everything releases out of the person's body, including the blood. Actually that's why corpses smell really bad at first, and it isn't because of decomposition.
- Even as you slow down, the point you are at, your body is getting compressed, so you are getting destroyed. Well it doesn't matter anyways. Because without the necessities needed, you will die pretty quickly anyways. Also if I had a choice of living an eternal life burning in hades and being bothered by others and bothering others, or having a solitary life until I die away from everyone and everything in the middle of space where I would never bother anyone again, I would pick the solitary life.
I honestly must not be able to comprehend what you mean by "death in media". It sounds like what happens to a tv show when enough people don't watch it. :lol: I feel bad for your interpretation of the end of life. My own feeling is that the adventure continues without many of the limitations we have now. The worlds we can explore within our dreams lucid or not are only a preview and field of preparation for the universe we may someday exist in. ;)
buildit wrote:
nesgirl wrote:buildit wrote:You are missing my point about both topics. 1. Dead people don't bleed, know why? 2. Black holes only come in different sizes but are identical in how they work. So once you reach the event horizon weather big or small you will accelerate to a terminal velocity nearing the speed of light where time will move slower. It is part of Einstein's theory of relativity so I'm just spitting back up science that's a bit beyond me anyways. So blame Einstein if it's wrong. ON second thought blame Steven Hawkins since he said recently black holes don't exist at all. :lol:
- I beg to differ that dead people can't die in media. There is clear evidence in the media that dead people can in fact die a second death: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0UY4tHHb4o Well the ghost of Christmas past sure bled quite a bit when he got shot, and he even got his carcass eaten. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uej3kF8cIhY After Peter Pan gets Curb Stomped, his "Shadow" gets curb stomped, and there's shadow guts all over where he got curb stomped http://videolog.tv/583837 The cats get vacuumed and burned to death as the mouse enjoys himself. And if you are talking about a literal person bleeding after they are dead, they can bleed after death if they are bleeding to begin with. Biology doesn't stop after a person dies, so everything releases out of the person's body, including the blood. Actually that's why corpses smell really bad at first, and it isn't because of decomposition.
- Even as you slow down, the point you are at, your body is getting compressed, so you are getting destroyed. Well it doesn't matter anyways. Because without the necessities needed, you will die pretty quickly anyways. Also if I had a choice of living an eternal life burning in hades and being bothered by others and bothering others, or having a solitary life until I die away from everyone and everything in the middle of space where I would never bother anyone again, I would pick the solitary life.
I honestly must not be able to comprehend what you mean by "death in media". It sounds like what happens to a tv show when enough people don't watch it. :lol: I feel bad for your interpretation of the end of life. My own feeling is that the adventure continues without many of the limitations we have now. The worlds we can explore within our dreams lucid or not are only a preview and field of preparation for the universe we may someday exist in. ;)
It means that you can die a second time.
Not what I hear from many of the religious leader's mouths. If you were evil (which many of us here were actually deemed that, including myself), you keep your limitations, and disabilities, and you suffer. Unfortunately, many of my Lucid Dreams, I still have mood swings, those don't go away. It would be easy enough to conclude then I would have them in hades then.
As for living eternally in a Lucid Dream and not waking up from the Lucid Dream, as much pleasure as I get from my Lucid Dreams now and that I enjoy them, after a while I would eventually run out of new ideas and get bored, and would just want to die. The guy in Waking Life sure didn't want to live eternally in his Lucid Dreams and when he was ready at the end of the movie, simply faded into unconsciousness.
nesgirl wrote: Not what I hear from many of the religious leader's mouths. If you were evil (which many of us here were actually deemed that, including myself), you keep your limitations, and disabilities, and you suffer. Unfortunately, many of my Lucid Dreams, I still have mood swings, those don't go away. It would be easy enough to conclude then I would have them in hades then.
As my Dad would say stop listening to (A-hole$) :lol: It took me many years to learn the difference between religion and faith. But I am not here to change minds, just express my POV.
nesgirl wrote: As for living eternally in a Lucid Dream and not waking up from the Lucid Dream, as much pleasure as I get from my Lucid Dreams now and that I enjoy them, after a while I would eventually run out of new ideas and get bored, and would just want to die. The guy in Waking Life sure didn't want to live eternally in his Lucid Dreams and when he was ready at the end of the movie, simply faded into unconsciousness.
No, not live in a lucid dream. I am saying that our lucid dreams are a type of preparation for afterlife. Again just my point of View and your end may differ. ;) From how you talk media all the time you might end like this...... :lol: LOL ---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk-8oyWpQNU
buildit wrote: No, not live in a lucid dream. I am saying that our lucid dreams are a type of preparation for afterlife. Again just my point of View and your end may differ. ;) From how you talk media all the time you might end like this...... :lol: LOL ---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk-8oyWpQNU
I would rather go out like this in a Lucid Dream https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFGPq3y4bHI Just like my best friend, uncle, boss, and little cousin did, if I should fail to heal myself, my sash that supports me will break, and like the others I will fly into the sky look over the horizon, and slowly have my dream body disappear and have my consciousness fade permanently away with it.
nesgirl wrote: Just like my best friend, uncle, boss, and little cousin did, if I should fail to heal myself, my sash that supports me will break, and like the others I will fly into the sky look over the horizon, and slowly have my dream body disappear and have my consciousness fade permanently away with it.
Sorry your opinion of an after life is so tainted. I prefer to think that human curiosity is a force in nature. If it is my will alone that propels my soul, whatever that may be, into eternity, it is my curiosity to know and understand what it has all meant that will be the fuel for my will to power it forward thru time. When the last two atoms bump for the last time and time can no longer be measured for lack of universal movement, I will be witness. :ugeek:
"Why did you climb that mountain?" they asked me. "Because I'd never seen the world from that perspective" I told them.
nesgirl wrote: Actually I am fairly surprised Summerland hasn't come on here yet and started debating his views on this, because he just loves to argue about this kind of thing, that and romance.
Well, everyone has a view and there is no right or wrong, unless someone wants to go find out. :roll:
buildit, I share your view, I think by now you see that Rebecca has them all. At times I think it is not fair how some members use other members to spread their views, but of course it takes all kinds. Including me :)
erichsa wrote: buildit, I share your view, I think by now you see that Rebecca has them all. At times I think it is not fair how some members use other members to spread their views, but of course it takes all kinds. Including me :)
We should all be scientists of our existence. Formulate a hypothesis, experiment, collect data and present a thesis upon which the data can be presented. The more we know from either side of an issue the better informed we all are to formulate new ideas. ;) I appreciate the opportunity to have open forums on so many issues. :D
nesgirl wrote: It isn't that I don't believe in it, it is that I don't want it. With all due respect, talk to some of the other users who have mental disabilities, physical disabilities, or health issues, and see how they would feel keeping them in immortality. I can almost guarantee they wouldn't want to live eternity keeping them.
I hear that loud and clear. IS it fair for me to think that humans might not be the first or only ones to exist in the realm of an afterlife? In fact I suspect there are many alien consciouses that will be there and will likely be older, wiser and "stronger" than we are. It would make sense that such a large, enigmatic and ancient culture might well have well established rules for coexistence and against interfering with the lower dimensions. It would also make sense to me that they would be teachers, healers and sources of great wisdom that life forms capable of sustaining themselves there can access. :) In short the "afterlife might be better and more worth living that you suspect.
Of course the alternate possibility also exists where we are nothing more than a food source for the older stronger races that already exist in the afterlife. In other words we are little fish going into the deep water. :shock:
Well, I'm not going to repeat the reasons why the afterlife is so obviously untenable to me (I feel like I have done it a thousand times) but I will evince here why I wouldn't even want it to be true... ;-)
To be eternally conscious, in the sense of awareness that we are so familiar with (anthropic principle comes to mind), is to be gradually absorbed by an insidious, living hell. Soon you get bored once novelty dies. Infinite time means that you get to do everything you can conceive of an infinite number of times. As if this isn't enough to drive you potty, imagine having to think the same thing over and over again. You would be telling yourself, "I've done this before, I've thought this before, get me outta here..."
Your mind becomes a prison. You learn that once novelty dies consciousness leads to tedium and insanity. You would beg for a swift death guaranteed! The only way we can live forever is if we forget the past, if our memories work against us, in which case there is not much point in eternal life if you forget most of it for the sake of keeping novelty alive.
The truth is more economical: you only live briefly against cosmic time. (And you'll be lucky to remember everything that happens in this brevity - unlucky if you become demented in old age.)
This is the only life one can be sure of. So live like it is the only one because I'm willing to bet my life that it is! B-)
[ Post made via Android ] Image
Touche! So, dead means dead and we should be glad that it is so. It's a blessing in disguise... :-D
[ Post made via Android ] Image
Yeah. Btw, soon you will have a reply on the "religion-politics: Iraqi crisis" thread. Just been busy lately. Catch you later. Sweet lucid dreams full of deities! B-)
[ Post made via Android ] Image
Summerlander wrote: Yeah. Btw, soon you will have a reply on the "religion-politics: Iraqi crisis" thread. Just been busy lately. Catch you later. Sweet lucid dreams full of deities! B-)
[ Post made via Android ] Image
I like this bet because if I'm right you have me reminding you how wrong you were for eternity, if I'm wrong well it's a shallow victory for you. :lol:
nesgirl wrote:
buildit wrote:Summerlander wrote:Yeah. Btw, soon you will have a reply on the "religion-politics: Iraqi crisis" thread. Just been busy lately. Catch you later. Sweet lucid dreams full of deities! B-)
[ Post made via Android ] Image
I like this bet because if I'm right you have me reminding you how wrong you were for eternity, if I'm wrong well it's a shallow victory for you. :lol:
Unlike Summerland, for me, it is more of a coveted desire, not a belief. I have issues like I said earlier that I don't want to be stuck with for eternity. You are lucky, you may not deal with things in life that literally do make you want to escape to your Lucid Dreams and Multimedia Designs, but even then, that isn't enough.
I have real issues I deal with. You think I want to be stuck doing this for eternity, think again. I feel guilty enough when these things happen in reality, and I don't want eternal guilt on my shoulders: Yes sometimes because of my mood swings I can literally be like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Lcck2lJHLg or like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NPc08-BWvg (this mood swing causes me to have insomnia) If I have certain mood swings I can sometimes act like a complete jerk, which when I realize I am, I feel really bad about it.
Well, I do understand your reasoning on this. I actually know who your polar bear is.... :oops:
Well, if I'm wrong I'm wrong. But I doubt I am. For me it isn't about victories. It is more about staying on the side of what is evident, factual, and true.
I cannot readily believe in something for which there is no evidence.
[ Post made via Android ] Image
Summerlander wrote: Well, if I'm wrong I'm wrong. But I doubt I am. For me it isn't about victories. It is more about staying on the side of what is evident, factual, and true.
I cannot readily believe in something for which there is no evidence.
I might believe you believe in theories that conform to a pre existing set of standards you have. Outside that set of standards are monsters and just like the numerical monsters are hard to accept in our real world.
Title ACM SIGSAM Bulletin Homepage table of contents archive Volume 34 Issue 4, Dec. 2000 Editor Mark Giesbrecht Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada Pages 16-32 Publication Date 2000-12-01 (yyyy-mm-dd) Sponsor SIGSAM ACM Special Interest Group on Symbolic and Algebraic Manipulation Publisher ACM New York, NY, USA ISSN: 0163-5824 doi>10.1145/377626.377635
When the results of certain computer calculations are shown to be not simply incorrect but dramatically incorrect, we have a powerful reason to be cautious about all computer-based calculations. In this paper we present a "Rogue's Gallery" of simple calculations whose correct solutions are obvious to humans but whose numerical solutions are incorrect in pathological ways. We call these calculations, which can be guaranteed to wreak numerical mayhem across both software packages and hardware platforms, "Numerical Monsters". Our monsters can be used to provide deep insights into how computer calculations fail, and we use them to engender appreciation for the subject of numerical analysis in our students. Although these monsters are based on well-understood numerical pathologies, even experienced numerical analysts will surprises in their behavior and can use the lessons they bring to become even better masters of their tools.
LOL! Buildit, rather than focusing on non-sequitur pseudo-analogies, ponder more on your Carl Sagan quote. :mrgreen:
Summerlander wrote: LOL! Buildit, rather than focusing on non-sequitur pseudo-analogies, ponder more on your Carl Sagan quote. :mrgreen:
I have and decided my life is too short to make decisions on what to ignore just because it doesn't fit my world view.
But you are doing exactly that. You are ignoring that which doesn't fit your worldview. Only what you ignore is based on science, reason and facts.
Brain malfunction can give rise to agnosias where an individual can fail to recognise faces, objects or colours. We can also lose the power of speech, sight, audition etc. etc. All mental faculties can be affected via changes in the brain...
And yet you probably believe that once you are dead, and thus your brain completely destroyed, you will be able to SEE your deceased loved ones, to HEAR them greet you, to RECOGNISE their faces, to UNDERSTAND them, to discern colours in some heavenly realm, and to be more CONSCIOUS than a living person in deep dreamless sleep when their brain is in delta mode.
Keep dreaming, buildit! :-D
[ Post made via Android ] Image
Summerlander wrote: But you are doing exactly that. You are ignoring that which doesn't fit your worldview. Only what you ignore is based on science, reason and facts.
It might seem that way but I am a scientist and have two degrees in it. So I know the textbook, religion is evil, when we die that it the rest is all hippy crap for drug addicts. :roll: But then until I discovered there was a lot of people who control their dreams and not just me, this was all hocus pocus crap too. So now I HAVE to entertain ideas outside the text books or think you are all lying and I am lying to myself.
So are you lying to me? ;)
...
nesgirl, what you said is quite oxymoronic. How can an unconscious person lucid dream? If you are unconscious, you are not aware of anything. There is no conscious experience. I'll make this simple by pointing out lucid dreaming's other name: conscious dreaming.
See the contrast? :-D
Now, buildit. First you don't talk like a scientist. But even if you were a renowned scientist, like the numbnut who founded the genome project and was appointed by Obama to head the science department, it still wouldn't make you right or honest or a genius.
If you are not following scientific procedure in your experiments you will get found out. Your peers will want to replicate your experiments to test the veracity of what you found. The scientific community often competes for prizes and recognition!
You could also be a great scientist and still express religiosity. How some can say that they believe in God and an afterlife is a mystery to me. So I sometimes examine what they are about to find out how they can leave their supposed beliefs outside the lab. You know what I usually come across? That they are either lying to keep their religious families happy or they have political agendas. Either way, they are often laughed at by their no-nonsense, more reasonable colleagues who can see right through the bullshit: I use science to study the world, but use faith to believe in the supernatural.
[ Post made via Android ] Image
I think you are confused. And if you did dream it must have been during the coming to stage - not the period of unconsciousness. It makes no sense.
Anyway, lucid dreaming is not evidence for an afterlife. Never has been, never will be.
[ Post made via Android ] Image
No it was definitely while I was unconscious, evidenced because in one of them, I heard the doctors say he was going to flash a bright light in my eyes. This was while I was unconscious.
If you heard the doctors talking, you were aware of sound, their presence, and your situation. If you were aware, you were conscious.
Am I the only one here who sees sense? :mrgreen:
I even told him he said that. Now how could I have possibly known THAT if I was completely unconscious?
Let's say you were unconscious at the time. Your doctor speaks, sound waves travel to your ears and into your brain. It has an effect on brain activity even while you are unconscious. Neurons still register the sound data. When you came to (consciousness enters the scene), the sound data is reported as a "memory" when it actual fact consciousness is just catching up with cerebral alterations that occurred during the unconscious state.
See? No need to postulate a supernatural out-of-body state or the existence of a soul that works independent of bodies and still perceives. :D
And Unconscious Lucid Dreaming doesn't imply evidence for an afterlife Summerland. I know that other people besides myself and others have been able to dream/Lucid Dream unconsciously. I cannot be wrong, because if there are so many surgery stories out there, there obviously is something going on inside an unconscious person's brain.
There is no such thing as an unconscious lucid dream. You can, however, have lucid dreams and not remember them if you don't jot them down in your journal (but later you may recall snippets). This, I'm sorry to say, wasn't your case. You claim that you were conscious during unconsciousness which is not making any sense. :?
Also, as I have mentioned before, NDEs are not proof. After a traumatic experience such as a car accident, about 20% of patients report having had a conscious experience while they were "out." Such experiences didn't necessarily occur when they had minimal brain activity. While they were coming to, blood flow probably caused REM bursts of activity. During this peculiar state they would hallucinate all sorts. They would also perceive time distortions. The mind would work in trying to make sense of what happened to them and a traumatically forced dream state, as the brain struggles into consciousness, would fill the gaps with any fantasy such as the afterlife.
Typical feelings of comfort follow as endorphins are released. They feel they don't fear death any more. They think they are immortal from the epiphany they experienced. It's very solipsistic and egocentric. The mind reverts to an attractive form of deluded survival instinct, like a child thinking everything will always be okay because mummy and daddy are there... :mrgreen:
The remaining 80% of patients report nothing (either they have no souls or the impact of the physical trauma just differed greatly from the others - you make up your mind!). It is funny that nobody is making a claim that there is no afterlife based on the 80%. Why is it that so much significance is assigned to the measly 20%?
Confirmation bias. 8-)
So you can hear while unconscious?
No, you can't hear when you are unconscious. You have missed the point again. Sound waves reach your brain but haven't reached consciousness yet because this one is not present. Consciousness gets updated once it emerges. Then you "remember" the sounds as though you were conscious at the time. but this memory is only what has been reported to consciousness.
If the EEG measured me as unconscious when I was conscious
You were NOT conscious... arrrghhhhh! :lol:
Also, maybe you stumbled upon some visual, coincidental hits when it came to the immediate environment. I don't know. If you think there is something there, gather your evidence. You might just prove the afterlife after all! :D
nesgirl wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBDz-nALvGo
I found this video. Actually studies are currently being investigated on the subject.
Good find. ;)
Yeah. No evidence for the afterlife. :mrgreen:
Simply put science will never admit to an after life as it would destroy the one tenant of all science. All hypotheses need to be tested and proven in repeatable studies. There are obviously few volunteers for this study. I do find it odd that people who cling to science to prove their world exists refuse the obvious process science has taken to get where it is today. There have been many dark periods of science where black box theories were implemented to describe the unexplainable. Even today string theory is used to try and create a grand theory of unification. To what end would a continuing existence after corporeal life end serve? Would it prove the existence of God, other life outside our realm of understanding or simply be an eternal never ending hell as Nesgrl fears? For me I think it provides a possibility that the phrase "I am because I think" is true. We are conscious because we are, what other reason is needed? It's like asking why doesn't life go on forever in a corporeal sense? To date we have found no real reason for the "cycle that life exists inside". Most of the cells in our bodies are replaced every two years by new ones and yet we age, the new cells fail to accomplish what the old ones did easily, we become susceptible to diseases. Why? Biologically there is no good reason for the cells to fail, the DNA to require further replication or the simple build up of chemicals to occur which ravage our bodies. Unless it is because we are not meant to live forever. Unless we are meant to go beyond this form? I can list a hundred scientific reasons this analogy would be failed but not one of them takes away from the stark reality that we die the same way animals did 3 million years ago. So where is evolution in the grand scheme of success from defeating the point of death? If evolution is based on producing variety in species with the end goals of better breeding, greater efficiency and greater survival why is there no creature which is immortal? Why do we all still die? So now an after life is a real possibility since it would explain what evolution is pushing us towards. Being better prepared, matured and capable of functioning in whatever comes after "life here" is done.
nesgirl wrote:
Summerlander wrote:Yeah. No evidence for the afterlife. :mrgreen:
It wasn't meant to be, it was meant to be evidence for dreaming while unconscious.
If you are dreaming you are perceiving, therefore you are conscious (even if it's not to the same degree as the waking state). I think you mean to say that consciousness may persist for longer than what people thought after the point of no return during the process of dying.
buildit wrote: Simply put science will never admit to an after life as it would destroy the one tenant of all science. All hypotheses need to be tested and proven in repeatable studies. There are obviously few volunteers for this study.
This is simply false and slightly nonsensical. I don't know what kind of casuistry you're trying to pull here, but, science simply follows evidence and the evidence appears to point away from the afterlife hypothesis.
buildit wrote: I do find it odd that people who cling to science to prove their world exists refuse the obvious process science has taken to get where it is today. There have been many dark periods of science where black box theories were implemented to describe the unexplainable. Even today string theory is used to try and create a grand theory of unification.
If science demonstrates the existence of an afterlife, I will accept it. Why? Because it would be the truth. And I don't have to like the truth! But that's not the case. Even in its infancy, science brings us substantial evidence to suggest that an afterlife is improbable. (Just like an intelligent Prime mover.) You seem to think that science is dogmatic, that it doesn't revise the data garnered from reality as we constantly try to refine our understanding and expand our ken. Remember, string theory is not well established yet, it's only a "what if" scenario at the moment. But you seem to be implying, erroneously, that it is canonical, and, in doing so, you attack the very method that is science.
buildit wrote: To what end would a continuing existence after corporeal life end serve? Would it prove the existence of God, other life outside our realm of understanding or simply be an eternal never ending hell as Nesgrl fears? For me I think it provides a possibility that the phrase "I am because I think" is true.
You do know that Descartes's dualism is obsolete right? And it's "cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am). The materialist would tell you, however, that you only think because your functional physical body, which necessarily includes a brain, is.
buildit wrote: To date we have found no real reason for the "cycle that life exists inside". Most of the cells in our bodies are replaced every two years by new ones and yet we age, the new cells fail to accomplish what the old ones did easily, we become susceptible to diseases. Why? Biologically there is no good reason for the cells to fail, the DNA to require further replication or the simple build up of chemicals to occur which ravage our bodies. Unless it is because we are not meant to live forever. Unless we are meant to go beyond this form?
LOL! You are clearly not a scientist, or evolutionary biology is clearly not your speciality. DNA replication is not something that was intelligently designed in the first place. It is worth noting that genetic units can survive for many generations after countless acts of procreation. Our DNA, as a replicator, can be thought of as immortal even if our bodies aren't. If our bodies were immortal, there would be no point in replication or procreation for that matter. Our bodies are merely evolved armours for genes. It is not a perfect armour but it has the potential to protect genes long enough to give them a chance to be passed on (the act of procreation in adulthood). Anyway, DNA is not a flawless replicator. (In fact, RNA used to do it much better billions of years ago before DNA hijacked its role.)
DNA within a body will have a tendency to make more and more errors as time passes, hence senility. (Not to mention mutations caused by unproductive genes or rival alleles that survive through meiotic shuffling as well as environmental pressures such as inimical organisms and forms of radiation.) Bodies have a lifespan because nature dictates it so, not because some god made it so for some mysterious purpose. Evolution does not make predictions either, in fact, it makes lots of mistakes that human engineers wouldn't. It is not something that moves towards some goal or entelechy either. It is not a thinking agent. It is just blind nature. The teleological interpretation is simply false and ridiculous.
buildit wrote: I can list a hundred scientific reasons this analogy would be failed but not one of them takes away from the stark reality that we die the same way animals did 3 million years ago. So where is evolution in the grand scheme of success from defeating the point of death?
What!? Are you serious? :lol:
The reason why natural selection happens and makes evolution work is the very fact that creatures suffer, are pressured to make an effort, and ultimately die. Some species manage to survive and procreate. their genes are passed on. Others fail and go extinct. It is a game of adaptation involving predators and prey as the environment itself changes. Darwinian evolution, by the way (and to reiterate this so you don't forget), does not necessarily mean improvement, it means change. We may not have defeated death (who knows, we may succeed through technology) but nature has managed to willy-nilly prolong our lives in general. We no longer die in our twenties like our ancestors used to, we can live for more or less a century! This is not some intelligently accomplished goal by nature, you see, because this one is not a living agent making decisions.
This is the product of natural selection. People who lived longer tended to pass on their genes and over time our lifespans gradually extended. Enough time was available for this to happen because we have been a successful species so far. I hope you understand evolution a bit better now. :D
buildit wrote: If evolution is based on producing variety in species with the end goals of better breeding, greater efficiency and greater survival why is there no creature which is immortal? Why do we all still die?
And this is your fallacy. You have the wrong understanding of evolution as I previously demonstrated. It is all about the "war" of genes surviving through generations of natural selection. Bodies are merely temporary vehicles. In our case, meiosis during procreation has been enough for genes to survive. It is all about the genes and how they fare against this dodgy world. Genes create sexual bodies prone to procreation which will in turn create other sexual bodies with the same tendencies. If a body somehow became immortal, there would be no need for the genes that 'inform' the making of reproductive system during embryology. This is the cyclical path that nature has taken, my friend, which at the moment appears unremitting. :ugeek:
buildit wrote: So now an after life is a real possibility since it would explain what evolution is pushing us towards. Being better prepared, matured and capable of functioning in whatever comes after "life here" is done.
Erm... no. LOL! Evolution is not God. The afterlife hypothesis is not filling any void here. We are still mortal through blind natural processes over billions of years. We have merely become more complex, not necessarily more efficient. (Although the more efficient organisms tend to survive and pass on their genes.) Also, what preparation could a stillborn possible have for the next life. There is nothing intelligent guiding evolution, buildit. Was Hitler better prepared? 8-)
Summerlander wrote: This is simply false and slightly nonsensical. I don't know what kind of casuistry you're trying to pull here, but, science simply follows evidence and the evidence appears to point away from the afterlife hypothesis.
Please post the study you are referring to where science says what you are saying.
Summerlander wrote: And this is your fallacy. You have the wrong understanding of evolution as I previously demonstrated. It is all about the "war" of genes surviving through generations of natural selection. Bodies are merely temporary vehicles. In our case, meiosis during procreation has been enough for genes to survive. It is all about the genes and how they fare against this dodgy world. Genes create sexual bodies prone to procreation which will in turn create other sexual bodies with the same tendencies. If a body somehow became immortal, there would be no need for the genes that 'inform' the making of reproductive system during embryology. This is the cyclical path that nature has taken, my friend, which at the moment appears unremitting
Please identify your information from this definition available on line for anyone to read... Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]
All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8-3.5 billion years ago.[2][3] Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by sequencing shared DNA sequences.[4] These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.[5]
buildit wrote:
Summerlander wrote:This is simply false and slightly nonsensical. I don't know what kind of casuistry you're trying to pull here, but, science simply follows evidence and the evidence appears to point away from the afterlife hypothesis.
Please post the study you are referring to where science says what you are saying.
Summerlander wrote: And this is your fallacy. You have the wrong understanding of evolution as I previously demonstrated. It is all about the "war" of genes surviving through generations of natural selection. Bodies are merely temporary vehicles. In our case, meiosis during procreation has been enough for genes to survive. It is all about the genes and how they fare against this dodgy world. Genes create sexual bodies prone to procreation which will in turn create other sexual bodies with the same tendencies. If a body somehow became immortal, there would be no need for the genes that 'inform' the making of reproductive system during embryology. This is the cyclical path that nature has taken, my friend, which at the moment appears unremitting
Please identify your information from this definition available on line for anyone to read... Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]
All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8-3.5 billion years ago.[2][3] Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by sequencing shared DNA sequences.[4] These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.[5]
There is nothing intelligent guiding evolution, buildit. Was Hitler better prepared? 8-) Summerlander
Again please identify a source that has proven this without doubt. As far as I am aware what you are saying is untrue and based only on your bigoted point of view concerning anyones ideas that don't match your idea. Keep in mind we are discussing ideas and you cynical and demeaning attitude only demonstrates your malevolent attitude towards those who don't share your opinion.
LoL! Buildit, what are you doing? :-D
As a scientist, you should already know what science has found. Regarding consciousness you should take a look at the whole of neuroscience.You don't even need specific studies to be pinpointed here. Everybody knows what dementia can do to a person. How about the mental impairments from certain agnosias? Take prosopagnosia, for instance. On evolution, our eyes are so poorly designed that the optic nerve actually impairs much of the vision that we could have. Hence the blind spot! How about the fact that we now walk upright and this causes us to acquire back problems? So much for intelligent design and purpose in nature.
What I espouse here is pretty much straight forward common sense. They are only logical observations derived from common knowledge. There is consensus in the scientific community on all these things.
You call yourself a scientist and yet it appears that I am more of a scientist than you... and I'm not even one! I have typed off by heart without needing to copy and part excerpts from Wiki like you (which don't even contradict what I've said in any way). I am surprised to find that you lack common scientific knowledge and what's worse, you don't think like one.
Hmm... :-)
[ Post made via Android ] Image
:lol: ^^^ Summer knocks it out of the park yet again. It really is strange how buildit doesn't understand the fundamentals of basic evolution and biology. I'm genuinely curious as to what kind of scientist he is...
Summerlander wrote: Everybody knows what dementia can do to a person. How about the mental impairments from certain agnosias? Take prosopagnosia, for instance. On evolution, our eyes are so poorly designed that the optic nerve actually impairs much of the vision that we could have. Hence the blind spot! How about the fact that we now walk upright and this causes us to acquire back problems? So much for intelligent design and purpose in nature.
That is the same line of logic that allowed the inquisition to exist. The attitude which Dogchain has about cheering you on is the danger we face when science is made popular and simply accepted. If you have 1000 truths and they are based upon one lie, in science all those truths are now in question.
Honestly your mater of fact attitude that science has somehow proven anything about the soul or existence of mental consciousness after death of the corporeal form is unsubstantiated. It is not an affront to scientific method to say, "I DON'T KNOW". Many say it IS the beginning of all wisdom and knowledge.
So we reach an impasse where the science equipment is not advanced far enough to research the hypothesis. We also can not discern if first hand accounts are truly valid thru associative study with the visible or detectable universe. So instead of discussing the possibilities of alternate ideas summerland wants a personal debate club where he can show off his lawyer like skills and Dischain can play cheerleader. I would rather entertain multiple ideas as discuss merits instead of the grandstanding and bigotry others like to preform.
But then my degrees ARE in science not as a paralegal. :roll:
deschainXIX wrote: :lol: ^^^ Summer knocks it out of the park yet again. It really is strange how buildit doesn't understand the fundamentals of basic evolution and biology. I'm genuinely curious as to what kind of scientist he is...
You know it! 8-)
buildit wrote: But then my degrees ARE in science not as a paralegal. :roll:
I take it my are paralegal, then. And I make good use of the evidence available... :D
@buildit
It works ... bitches.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OtFSDKrq88
(Don't get mad and report me, please. :D )
Dawkins reminds me of the same people who persecuted the right to die of people who face horrible deaths because of disease because again, there is no grey, it's all black and white and the grey gets auto colored black by his bias.
In the mean time while you two come up with another of your endless arguments here is an interesting study on life after death where science and math was utilized and the results are interesting. I'd tell you two to read it with an open mind but I know that is not possible, so please respond that it's bad science and proves nothing so we can validate your POV. :roll:
Results of world's largest Near Death Experiences study published Thirty-nine per cent of patients who survived cardiac arrest and were able to undergo structured interviews described a perception of awareness, but interestingly did not have any explicit recall of events.
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2014/oct/14_181.shtml#.VFqrsIdIj_c
Results Among 2060 CA events, 140 survivors completed stage 1 interviews, while 101 of 140 patients completed stage 2 interviews. 46% had memories with 7 major cognitive themes: fear; animals/plants; bright light; violence/persecution; deja-vu; family; recalling events post-CA and 9% had NDEs, while 2% described awareness with explicit recall of ‘seeing’ and ‘hearing’ actual events related to their resuscitation. One had a verifiable period of conscious awareness during which time cerebral function was not expected.
http://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572%2814%2900739-4/fulltext
Dawkins follows science and reason. And near-death isn't actual death, buildit. Nobody dies and comes back to tell the tale. :-D
[ Post made via Android ] Image
Summerlander wrote: Dawkins follows science and reason. And near-death isn't actual death, buildit. Nobody dies and comes back to tell the tale. :-D
[ Post made via Android ] Image
-
Dawkins is a made for TV figure and feeds off his own biased and pompous attitude. He is the worst of science because of the personal bias he employs in his arguments. He is the Rush Limbaugh of the "science must prove itself right" world. :roll:
-
Near Death, it's as close as science or and medicine can get right now. If we find a method of reanimating a five year old rotting corpse we can ask it. In the mean time a nonexistent pulse and need for cardiopulmonary resuscitation appears to be the limit since decay of both brain and organs begins very quickly once oxygen stops circulating and acid levels start to rise in the blood stream. Now there are some animals like the species rana sylvatica that lives in Souther Ohio and during their hibernation, the frogs’ bodies are completely frozen and then thaw back to life. If we can reproduce that hibernation effect in people (stasis) we could have a whole new branch of science dedicated to research on life after death. ;) Beyond that there are few methods of ending life and then interviewing the Deceased which would not allow for corporeal damage prohibiting reanimation.
Oh dear. =-O
[ Post made via Android ] Image
lively "discussion" here, I could almost imagine the shouting. I'll just say I think both sides opinions are rational, however i prefer to lean toward's buildit's side (just let it go buildit) no way to prove either side so why discuss it? just wait and see
the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence .
LET'S GOOOOOOOO BUILDIT,
seriously if u could convince either of em it'd have to be true right, fortunately the proof is unknown so we can have this loveley back and forth
lastly, enjoy this short comic I just made up
*a heavenly voice boom's over a farmer's field "worship my name for I have blessed you with my creation" Farmer-pic's or it didn't happen
There is plenty of evidence pointing away from the afterlife fantasy. I will also give you a better quote than the moronic one you posted:
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
- Christopher Hitchens
Where?
Go back and revise this thread and you my also read "False Awakening or OBE" where this evidence has been pointed out time and again. 150 years of neuroscience is quite telling. Also, just ask the families of the brain damaged and mentally afflicted. And to append, only about twenty percent of those who suffer traumatic accidents report NDEs (which, contrary to New Age belief, the brain is still active) while the majority say they experienced nothing. NDEs are nothing but hallucinations gdnerated by a traumatised brain. This is a feeble reason to use as evidence for life after death.
[ Post made via Android ] Image
In the simplest terms all NDE are just that, they are near death not death and come back and all experienced in a living body and brain. As profound as they are and as much as it would be nice to see this a proof it sits in the arena of belief for now
I find it humorous how some continue to reject the idea of an existence beyond the end of corporeal life. I wonder if it is nature or nurture?
buildit wrote: I find it humorous how some continue to reject the idea of an existence beyond the end of corporeal life. I wonder if it is nature or nurture?
Some people don't want to deal with an afterlife, buildit. I am not rejecting the idea at all, buildit. I am just afraid of it. And why shouldn't I be? Some people have afflictions they just don't want to deal with for all eternity. Why don't you think about what it would be like for someone to have to deal with mood swings, pain, or some other affliction for all eternity, and see how they would like it?
It's nature, buildit. But not in the way you think. Nature shows us the absence of the postulated elan vital and us sceptics point this out to Spiritualists, New Agers, and the religious. And then again nature makes most of us afraid of death, which, as Freud pointed out, causes people like you to hold on to the comfortable fantasy for dear life. In your case it might be both.
Not only is the afterlife belief absurd against all the substantial opposing evidence, I am also glad that an actual spirit realm is extremely unlikely. It means that we are spared the horrifying tedium and agonising madness concommitant with eternal consciousness. :-)
Immortality is not true, and if it were, it would be a curse.
[ Post made via Android ] Image
Summerlander wrote: It's nature, buildit. But not in the way you think. Nature shows us the absence of the postulated elan vital and us sceptics point this out to Spiritualists, New Agers, and the religious. And then again nature makes most of us afraid of death, which, as Freud pointed out, causes people like you to hold on to the comfortable fantasy for dear life. In your case it might be both.
I do honestly believe that for their sake, there is a DMT release for some people that happens at the moment of death, which allows a person to have one last very vivid dream before complete oblivion, making it that much easier for some people to accept.
Not only is the afterlife belief absurd against all the substantial opposing evidence, I am also glad that an actual spirit realm is extremely unlikely. It means that we are spared the horrifying tedium and agonising madness concommitant with eternal consciousness. :-)
Whether it were true or false, the idea is frightening. Remember as I said earlier? You want to be stuck with your afflictions and simply continue to gain more of them? Oh and don't forget, the germs, bacteria, mosquitos, cockroaches, and fleas probably are immortal too. You know what that means don't you? Eternal sickness, illness, and misery for all.
Summerlander wrote: Immortality is not true, and if it were, it would be a curse.
Only to those whose lives are build upon the desires and wants of a corporeal existence.
buildit wrote:
Summerlander wrote:Immortality is not true, and if it were, it would be a curse.
Only to those whose lives are build upon the desires and wants of a corporeal existence.
Eh not quite Buildit. How about those who are handicapped and don't desire to be handicapped for eternity? Or those who are sick and cannot be cured of the illness. Why not think about that for a second?
nesgirl wrote: Eh not quite Buildit. How about those who are handicapped and don't desire to be handicapped for eternity? Or those who are sick and cannot be cured of the illness. Why not think about that for a second?
I am oddly quite certain than any afterlife would not mirror our corporeal existence. For example, is your Lucid Dream environment identical to reality? I suspect our lucid dreams are a preparatory stage towards non-corporeal existence.
On the plus side sex appears to be irrelevant in a non-corporeal life. ;) Think how upset Summerland would be. :lol:
buildit wrote:
nesgirl wrote:Eh not quite Buildit. How about those who are handicapped and don't desire to be handicapped for eternity? Or those who are sick and cannot be cured of the illness. Why not think about that for a second?
I am oddly quite certain than any afterlife would not mirror our corporeal existence. For example, is your Lucid Dream environment identical to reality? I suspect our lucid dreams are a preparatory stage towards non-corporeal existence.
On the plus side sex appears to be irrelevant in a non-corporeal life. ;) Think how upset Summerland would be. :lol:
It isn't what they teach at all in Utah. While males will kind of get a role similar to something like that if they get married to a female, females don't get those kind of privileges. They teach that you get auto-married if you aren't so in the next life (even if you are asexual). And females are obviously the wives who keep creating the babies for them....out their rears because of, blech, eternal romance. And other than that, they really don't play much of a role other than taking care of the children and supporting the husband.
nesgirl wrote: It isn't what they teach at all in Utah. While males will kind of get a role similar to something like that if they get married to a female, females don't get those kind of privileges. They teach that you get auto-married if you aren't so in the next life (even if you are asexual). And females are obviously the wives who keep creating the babies for them....out their rears because of, blech, eternal romance. And other than that, they really don't play much of a role other than taking care of the children and supporting the husband.
LOL, and I'm sure the Muslims think there will be 72 virgins. :roll: I'm talking about an existence as energy. Male and female would be as meaningless as short and tall.
only 72, well thats no good
energy - yip I like that thought. Free to gobble up sunlight and dark matter for food and just go see whats out there. Become a ship if thats what is needed for the day.. sounds like a great lucid
I'm talking about an existence as energy. Male and female would be as meaningless as short and tall.
If you are talking about in my Lucid Dreams, I am not exactly free of my mood swings in many of my Lucid Dreams. In fact some of them, I am overwhelmed by my mood swings. If mood swings are affecting some of my Lucid Dreams, then obviously I would be affected in energy form, now would I not?
As far as my programmed energy form in a Lucid Dream is concerned, while occasionally I am consciousness, and sometimes I will shape-shift, I am more prone to accept my own female shape (chest and all). I wouldn't have it any other way than to most of the time be in a female shape, because that's what I am. I wouldn't want to trade away being a female for anything, because my gender means a lot to me, and I am sure a lot of users feel the same about their gender. You just made me fear the afterlife even more.
Peter wrote: only 72, well thats no good
energy - yip I like that thought. Free to gobble up sunlight and dark matter for food and just go see whats out there. Become a ship if thats what is needed for the day.. sounds like a great lucid
In an odd way it makes perfect sense to me when I consider.
- Mankind is very destructive
- The earths carrying capacity close to being maxed out and humans keep breeding like mold
- There soon will not be enough resources on this world to send ourselves to a new world
- Mankind is ill build for prolonged space travel
- If we assume other life in the Universe they too must have faced this "wall" and they may have resolved the same answer.
- Lucid Dreamers all seem to concur that flight and OBE experiences are often associated with the greatest level of LD control.
- Lucid Dreams are such an ideal training ground for the mind to prepare for non-corporeal existence.
I know this doesn't meet the religious expectations of certain groups but then there is only one unifying concept of all those religions. An existence beyond corporeal, possibly as a reward for moral values. Even that may have a basis for some truth. Being able to surrender corporeal desires and needs may in fact be the hardest part of becoming non-corporeal. The pending death of the body might make this easier but I'm not clear on this aspect.
Being able to surrender corporeal desires and needs may in fact be the hardest part of becoming non-corporeal
some of the bodyless experiences I have had in what I call the void or void state are without any part or residue of me existing but with some form of self identity differant to what I have now. In short something existed that had awareness in a different form but did exist and had no physical component.
There would be no issue existing like this at all, I have not chased up this state for a longtime but feel I could if I wanted to again so at some time yes I will.
The wall, yes. One of my thoughts is that we are advancing or developing in a way that may allow us to move on, just an interesting though and have no need to defend this. Will have my answer when I die and will either be right of wont know and either is fine really
Without any contact from or with other life forms of a physical nature and the stupidity of finding what we are looking for in more macro and micro events in space and quantum states it appears to be a dream that is driven by belief and suffers from an event that is taken as proof but the nuts and bolts can never be seen A bit of track here but I do that. Anyway lets hone these skills and if needed then one day we might just be truly free
Peter wrote: Anyway lets hone these skills and if needed then one day we might just be truly free
I've spent several months slowly piecing together a life beyond corporeal. Each night it is as if I get another tiny bit of the puzzle. Last night was some sort of insight as to what will become of those who are left behind. It wasn't pleasant and I didn't understand much of it but I was very lucid of what was going on. Part of me really wants to leave this life, but just enough is duty bound to those still here to keep me from really wanting to let go the rest of the way. Someday I look forward to breaking that last bond.
keep the thought that when u are ready it will happen and until till then just enjoy, life is special no matter what is or is not beyond.
keen to hear about any insights, if its not for public thats cool or pm is you wish
I suspect the release of endogenous DMT and other psychedelic compounds in the brain will lead us to experience a pseudo-afterlife, as nesgirl pointed out, during the dying process.
Believers will think, "I knew it!" and the sceptics will be wondering, "Is this real?" And both will be ushered out of existence and into oblivion without noticing. In a way, this is the best case scenario. But, I concede to buildit, I don't know. People who die in explosions get nirvana straight away... but no raisi...erm... virgins. :-D
[ Post made via Android ] Image