Death

I am curious to see how other Lucid Dreamers view death and the (possible) hereafter.

I've always wondered what may or may not happen after, but a recent experience has me intrigued more than usual:

I was at a beach hotel with my GF two weeks ago, and after settling in and getting ready to go down to the shore, I had a very strong unnerving Deja Vu. I felt as if I had been there before, but that I was going to die that night. It was the most profound Deja Vu I have felt to date. Weird, right? Well, at about 3am, I got extremely hot, light headed, and felt like I was going to puke...so I went to the oval office and popped a squat next to the immaculately clean hotel toilet :lol: . While squatting next to the John, I got even hotter (it was cold inside and outside of the room, but I could liken it to the feeling of being on the verge of spontaneous combustion) and I started puking. Then after a good Ralph, my vision was reduced to nothing but dimmed tunnel vision, I was even more extremely light-headed, and I felt as if I was going to pass out (all while getting hotter and hotter), which brought forth the memory of the Deja Vu, which then led to the thought that I was actually going to die at that moment (justified in my mind by how I felt, and how the feeling was worsening). And in that moment, I felt the most overwhelming and consuming feeling of peace, content, and curiosity. The only way I could explain the feeling, is that I felt ready and willing. Obviously I didn't die...unless I did, and somehow I was transported to an alternate dimension/reality :D ... but the experience has me thinking about our mortality, and what possibly lies at the end of the path.

Personally, I'd like to wishfully think that after bodily death, consciousness continues to have some form of experience, whether it be similar to the Tibetan Book of The Dead or something reminiscent of a very long LD like in Waking Life. But when thinking about it, nihilism, or the absence of experience, doesn't seem all that bad either...but I guess it couldn't be good or bad, since there would be no subjective experience of the nothingness :) . Perhaps even a seemingly long psychedelic experience upon the release of DMT into our dying brain could be an option...

There's many beliefs, philosophies, experiences (NDEs), and a whole lot of wishful thinking on the matter, but I'm curious to get some different perspectives from other dreamers; please share any of your thoughts and experiences.

I've had my fair share of intriguing experiences of the sort. And I do think that the process of dying entails a pseudo-afterlife if endorphins and endogenous psychedelics (such as DMT) are released by the brain in its last-ditch attempt to survive. (This scenario may manifest provided that your brain doesn't get completely destroyed in a split second, as is the case in explosions.)

But notice that I said "pseudo-afterlife." At that point, despite the ostensible reality of leaving your earthly body and of going somewhere else, you are experiencing nothing but a strong illusion. And the lucid illusion will last for as long as the brain is active, before eventually fading into an ordinary dream, and, before you know it, oblivion.

I am compelled to have this view given the overwhelming neuroscientific evidence that, damaging areas of the brain can seriously impair your mental faculties - including consciousness and the sense of self. (It seems to me that these two are illusorily begotten by all the different types of memory.)

So, there you go. So far, the materialistic stance is winning and it doesn't look like it's going to change. And you are right, wishful thinking plays a massive role when it comes to believing in the hereafter. We all want to think that we will meet up with the lucid version of grandma before she was afflicted with Alzheimer's disease and died.

Just the other day I dreamt about having a conversation with my deceased stepfather. That made me think, "I must be dreaming," but I still had doubts which just shows that I wasn't all there either. So, I decided to see if my hand would go through a table nearby - which it did. (As if my stepfather's presence wasn't enough!) Lucidity didn't last long either for I proceeded to tell a dream character resembling my mother that my stepfather was alive and that it had to be him for real because he was eating cheddar cheese. (I woke up with a "wtf?!")

The point is, even us living people are not as alive or as conscious as we think we are sometimes. Very soon, in the science forum, I will post an essay about brain activity and mental faculties...

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Summerlander wrote: But notice that I said "pseudo-afterlife." At that point, despite the ostensible reality of leaving your earthly body and of going somewhere else, you are experiencing nothing but a strong illusion. And the lucid illusion will last for as long as the brain is active, before eventually fading into an ordinary dream, and, before you know it, oblivion.

I've pondered the idea that this may be the case, and as I played with idea, I wonder if it is possible that during the DMT induced pseudo-afterlife that time is so skewed, that it may seem an eternity (although it took say, for example, 15 minutes for complete brain-death and then consequently nothingness).

Summerlander wrote: I am compelled to have this view given the overwhelming neuroscientific evidence that, damaging areas of the brain can seriously impair your mental faculties - including consciousness and the sense of self. (It seems to me that these two are illusorily begotten by all the different types of memory.)

So, there you go. So far, the materialistic stance is winning and it doesn't look like it's going to change.

Whoa there, Mr. Science! :D I don't think there is a contest, although each side of the argument may want to be right.

Couldn't it be possible, just for conversation since science has yet to thoroughly explore this realm due to present limitations, that the human brain is the means through which consciousness expresses itself in a human form? In other words, the physical brain is likened to a computer and consciousness likened to the operator. From this standpoint, if the "computer" were to be damaged, yet still somewhat operable, the "operator" would be limited in forms of expression. I wonder if quantum mechanics, or whatever new understanding in the future will resolve the quarrel between science and the more spiritual concepts of our subjective experience.

Summerlander wrote: Very soon, in the science forum, I will post an essay about brain activity and mental faculties...

I'm looking forward to reading it. And thanks for the response, very interesting to think about.

(I started to blab and rant, but I like this and I've missed a good talk about life and death here on this site, so I just went for it. It's still the tip of the iceberg and getting things off my chest. We could all write our own books about it and our views!)

I had a few far out experiences that others have dubbed 'Panic Attacks'.

I was sober at the time, but it can be compared to a psychedelic trip with delusions (did that a few times so know what I'm talking about), or even running a high fever. The two are very similar and anyone who lucid dreams is not afraid to admit they are a natural 'tripper'.

I did have a bad 'Panic Attack' back in December 2011. It was "hangover-induced" and my body must have been depleted of vitamins that I pissed out or something, but I was not well, and looking back, my body was probably in some sort of 'shock'. My mouth was like a desert, and my body would swing between heating up to the point of spontaneous combustion, and freezing into an icicle.

But my mind was active, and I tell you, I had the feeling that I was not 'here' and that I was in a machine and that all of life was just an illusion. It reminded me of The Matrix. I was out in public at the time and looked around at everyone and realized, their thoughts don't exist! And neither do mine! Once a thought happens it is gone and it is only remembered but that too is a thought and it's an endless spiral in time that can never be pinpointed! :o :shock: :o :shock: :o (head nearly exploded).

I'm better now.... but I still believe that I saw 'the truth'. Even though I admit I was delusional.

How does this relate to thought (living), or absence of thought (death). ?

My little paragraph doesn't explain the impact and my lucid dreaming has carried this same mentality forward and I think I am starting to come up with the answer.... I had a revelation while watching a bird this morning and this explains it in a more visual way.

I watched a bird outside a large glass sliding door, and watched it hop along, it's head jerking in precise motions, searching for scrap, thread-like pieces it has been programmed for to take in its mouth and fly off with to put together in a configuration we humans call a 'nest'. The bird has no idea what it's doing, but does it so well. Better than we humans! Have you ever tried to build a nest with your mouth using only dead grass?! NO!

Birds are robots. The universe and reality can be explained with mathematics, and a complex series of 'cause and effect'.

Self Awareness, although seems magical to us, is just part of the same equation. Even ravens, another bird, is said to be self-aware and mourns death.

So after all that, my view on life and death is that we are just biological machines running rampant with only the sheer appearance of being sentient with free will. We're just ants in a colony! When I die it will have as much impact on the universe as a bird that mistakenly flies into a clean, transparent window, lands on the ground with a concussion, loses consciousness, 'dies', and gets eaten by ants...... and the cycle continues and the program goes on......

(I only scratched the surface with my rant, but I like these discussions, and although it sounds depressing, it can actually be inspirational, because it also means now is the only time you know for sure that you have, and live it to the greatest, fullest potential! And how can one fear death when it happens billions of times a day on this planet alone without a second thought?! :D )

HAGART wrote: So after all that, my view on life and death is that we are just biological machines running rampant with only the sheer appearance of being sentient with free will. When I die it will have as much impact on the universe as a bird that mistakenly flies into an immaculate window, lands on the ground in a concussion and gets eaten by ants...... and the cycle continues and the program goes on......

I like how you put that it's all mathematics, just some big machine (like the matrix). But to be honest, it kind of irks me. To what end? For what purpose? Who/what/how was this machine set in motion?

I was reading something today that was similar in premise... Does a bacteria cell have consciousness, free-will, or a "soul?" Does a mosquito go to an afterlife after death? We are not much different than any other organism on this planet, just a huge conglomerate of cells dancing to the tune of chemical reactions. It doesn't leave much to imagine for a "hereafter."

HAGART wrote: and although it sounds depressing, it can actually be inspirational, because it also means now is the only time you know for sure that you have, and live it to the greatest, full potential!

Nope, it's 100% depressing :lol: . And if we truly are just robots that are purely controlled by chemicals, with no free-will, to what potential can we live to? The best we can strive for is to be content with whatever life circumstance we face, yet we can't strive for that out of free-will since that's just an illusion. And just a thought, but if nihilism is the case, and our life experiences, memories, etc are erased at the moment of death, why have the experience in the first place? What is the "I" that had the experience, and what happens to that "I?"

Very intriguing reading your thoughts. I like where this discussion is going so far! :ugeek:

I've been down that road of depression, constantly questioning "I", and comparing it to other "I"s in all the many forms the universe has sprouted whether it be a dog or a human, or everything in between.

But there is no line, only shades of gray.

"I" is a mental construct and no different from any other living thing that had developed a sense of self. It was just an illusion. Do you feel bad when you eat celery? Do you feel worse when you eat a lamb shank? It's all because of emotion and our empathy for other things. (I must admit I feel worse for a lamb than a stalk of celery but both wanted to live. There is no logic and despite my coming to the fruition that I am a robot, I still struggle with empathy and that's my hurdle to true enlightenment and free from mental suffering).

Back to lucid dreaming... I have asked my dream characters about all this and have many answers, but need to look them up. I know you would be interested.

I remember one when I asked, (I paraphrase) "What's the point of learning and bettering oneself if we are all going to perish and die in the end and all is forgotten?" (Thinking it's a waste of time)

He answered: "It makes your life better here and now" (It's not to get a better place in the after life but to improve the "Now-Life".)

(I still go through mood swings and get depressed and I am by no means an inspirational speaker! LOL! SAD.) (I say this stuff to myself to keep it in perspective and keep me upbeat.... pathetic, I know!)

P.S. This bewildered me for the past few days. I heard there are more bacteria in your body living free than cells in your own body. (not sure if that's true or not, but if so) We are like a microchasm of planet Earth! Makes you question who you really are if your own body is mostly not you and where does 'you' or 'I' begin and where does it end with every breath changes you body's makeup at the atomic level.......

(I have a challenge for you. Point to yourself. Simple right? Now think again about your 'true self' and point again.... you're not pointing at your toes or your stomach, and are probably pointing at your brain.... but that's still not you! Where the heck are you?!??!?)

:o (my head exploded so many times, but I think there is a light at the end of this tunnel so to speak.... but it's love for the here and now and past and future don't exist so it's a waste of energy to worry)

I say that, but am still in the same boat and wish my internal voice would say that!

How can you go anywhere after you die if you were never "here"?

I pose so many questions with no answers.

I should gather my thoughts one day instead of ranting online, but this is good fun and a way to express ourselves, so no apologies.

HAGART wrote: I pose so many questions with no answers.

I should gather my thoughts one day instead of ranting online, but this is good fun and a way to express ourselves, so no apologies.

Honestly, I think that's all there is...questions upon questions. Like the Socrates, the more I know, the more I know nothing premise.

HAGART wrote: (I have a challenge for you. Point to yourself. Simple right? Now think again about your 'true self' and point again.... you're not pointing at your toes or your stomach, and are probably pointing at your brain.... but that's still not you! Where the heck are you?!??!?)

Challenge accepted...but not accomplished :D .

I've often thought about this through the reading of eastern philosophies, but still don't know what the "I" is, other than the personal experiential awareness that is separate from others personal experiential awareness, although I guess this could be seen as an illusion as well... story of my life: lost in the proverbial sauce :lol: .

HAGART wrote:

He answered: "It makes your life better here and now" (It's not to get a better place in the after life but to improve the "Now-Life".)

Interesting. Love this aspect of LDing. It's almost like we have a direct internet connection of esoteric information, at least it's more intriguing when I think of it in that way. I'm incubating my next LD to "show me what happens after bodily death."

If life is the rise and fall of chemical reactions with no true self, makes it fairly shitty if you're born a slave, with a severe untreatable disease, or possibly one of the millions of children that die from starvation each year. But perhaps the human desire for there to be more to life is a direct result of all the suffering that each individual undergoes. I wonder what evolutionary advantage there is to this line of thinking. If there is no "I," what advantage is there to having the illusion of? It's perfectly plausible that we are "robots," and in terms of survival, there is no real need to be self-aware, so what role does this play? I'm not arguing for either or of the debate, but trying to gain a better grasp of these concepts by picking other LDers brains.

Keep ranting, I don't get many thought-provoking conversations like this in my "normal" social life... specially not about morbid subjects like death :) .

HAGART wrote: How can you go anywhere after you die if you were never "here"?

Forgot to respond to this question. I know there is a subjective experience that is personal to me. How? I'm having a self-aware experience, and have been since I can remember. It is my experience. I can share my experience with you, but you cannot experience my experience, nor I yours. And even if you could experience my experience, or I yours, they still would not be the same because we both subjectively filter our experiences in different ways.

Summerlander wrote: including consciousness and the sense of self. (It seems to me that these two are illusorily begotten by all the different types of memory.)

True, if there were no memories, there would be no memory of the sense of self, but there would still be an experience being experienced.

Even if there were to be an experience beyond this earthly form, it couldn't be human, since the human form dies and returns to dust.

As with the example of the cells, could it be that they as well have a consciousness? We can't up and ask them, but could it be assumed that cells too have some sort of experience? Perhaps consciousness could be the "matrix" or "machine" that gives rise to any experience. But that would require that consciousness give rise to matter and not vice versa, wouldn't it?

I don't know if I articulated that idea in an understandable way, but I tried! :mrgreen:

I like this talk too, but need to go to sleep, and you know the expression 'sleep on it'. It works, lucid or not!

MAKER wrote: It's perfectly plausible that we are "robots," and in terms of survival, there is no real need to be self-aware, so what role does this play?

Excellent questions and I wonder why dreams or lucid dreams have an evolutionary advantage either. It could just be a bi-product of our insatiable desire to understand and our ability to see patterns, and our ability to hold places and objects in our minds, (object permanence).

That's what gave us an evolutionary advantage over other monkeys. Still acting like idiots rioting after soccer games and voting for morons in politics, but a step above other monkeys. ;)

But I feel it's Pattern Recognition and Object Permanence that makes us seem smarter than the average ape or ant, and with that, we can actually remember and analyze our dreams!

(I'm going to sleep on that, and didn't touch the surface of what you said.... good talk though and this is just the start, I can feel it!) :D

Going back to your reply to my post above, Maker, I'll give you my reasons why I think the computer analogy isn't a good one: the operator can be observed controlling the hardware and how this one affects the software can be understood (no self is found in the brain which shows the Cartesian model to be a much outdated hypothetical scenario only); a computer is nowhere near as complex as the brain; a brain is constantly changing; if you don't remember something, you are no longer conscious of it; scientists have found the subatomic Higgs (and yet, no "operator" is found in the brain; a soul would not explain consciousness nor free will because one would have to ask, "what makes the soul conscious?" "Another operator inside it and another one inside this one ad infinitum?" (makes no sense); a soul with a sense of free will would still find the origin of its urges mysterious and have doubts about free will, too.

All of this brings me to my next point: just because science still has an awful lot to suss out does not make the concept of an afterlife any more probable and gives us no reason to readily believe it (especially when overwhelming evidence points to the contrary). Hypothetically, a quantum mechanical configuration may stumble upon a proto-consciousness (Penrose "roots"), but, it is quite clear that a Tonomian system of interaction is required on a classical level within a complex organ such as the brain in order for actual consciousness to come to fruition. Something ticking like a Newton's cradle through time where memories come and go and may return (but never the same as the original experience).

Finally, and sorry to shatter yet again another product of wishful thinking, I don't know about the various ways in which the passage of time may be perceived during the dying process, but, if the pseudo-afterlife is anything like lucid dreaming, then you may only have a few minutes of relishing the delusion that you have somehow survived death - before being gradually ushered out into unconsciousness.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

When we think of life and death we must also think about how we perceive time. Our sense of time is based on our speed of thought. If I could speed up my thought processing x60, a second would feel like a minute, wouldn't it? Slow it down, and an hour would pass in 'fast forward' and feel like a minute.

The universe only appears to be stagnant because it is moving incredibly slow, but in actuality, it all depends on perception. Without any life to perceive it, the universe would begin and end in an instant as if it never happened. :o

When the brain shuts down during death, and possibly releases it's reserve of DMT, who knows how time will be perceived and maybe you do have a very long after-life trip that may seem to last forever. But what happens if a nuclear bomb is strapped to your forehead and detonated.... then what? It would be like life never happened in the first place and for all intense and purposes neither did the universe! :o

HAGART wrote: Our sense of time is based on our speed of thought. If I could speed up my thought processing x60, a second would feel like a minute, wouldn't it? Slow it down, and an hour would pass in 'fast forward' and feel like a minute.

The universe only appears to be stagnant because it is moving incredibly slow, but in actuality, it all depends on perception. Without any life to perceive it, the universe would begin and end in an instant as if it never happened.

That's exactly what I meant by saying that time could possibly be skewed during DMT release at the time just before brain death, giving rise to a pseudo-afterlife. Although an eternity was experienced, it was just the perception of an eternity. I remember my uncle talking to me about the universe happening all at once when I was wee li'l lad, although I didn't fully understand it then.

Summerlander wrote: I'll give you my reasons why I think the computer analogy isn't a good one

I wasn't necessarily proposing that it was a good model for an afterlife, just trying to articulate the idea that consciousness may preclude physical form, yet use physical forms to experience a physical reality. Yet even this is purely conjecture based on present knowledge. I don't proclaim myself to be one of the intellectual elite, I just read and ponder ideas :D .

Something similar that I was reading today was an idea proposed by Robert Lanza's theory of Biocentrism in which he uses quantum mechanics to forge a new understanding of life, death, and consciousness: "It is the belief that life and biology are central to reality and that life creates the universe, not the other way round." Here is the full article if anybody is interested: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2503370/Quantum-physics-proves-IS-afterlife-claims-scientist.html#ixzz32Jn9QV4K

Summerlander wrote: All of this brings me to my next point: just because science still has an awful lot to suss out does not make the concept of an afterlife any more probable and gives us no reason to readily believe it (especially when overwhelming evidence points to the contrary).

I agree completely, but conversely, one shouldn't believe in the opposite because there is no evidence for the other (yet). Belief can be a trap one way or the other, and has proven to be limiting to the pursuit of actual knowledge. I prefer the term wishful thinking, since it leaves room for change and restructure with newly found evidence, experience, etc.

I knew that there would be no definitive answer to the discussion topic I put forth, and I guess it can go one of two ways:

Either materialism is 100% correct, and at the time of physical death all conscious experience ceases to exist.

or

Consciousness is somehow responsible for physical reality (and any other possible realities) and there is some form of conscious experience (although not necessarily a human form of consciousness) that is not subject to physical death.

One way or the other, the mystery of it all gives me that tingly feeling in my gut. Experience past physical reality would be an awesome adventure to be had, yet the absence of experience really doesn't seem all that bad either...lazing away eternity in the abyss of nothingness (although I wouldn't even know it :mrgreen: ).

Lanza's "life creates the universe and not the other way around" is a major fallacy. We know that, shortly after the big bang, a plasma of energy began to form the lightest elements but that wasn't enough for life to emerge. In fact, it took billions of years before life could emerge anywhere in the universe. Why? Because the heavier elements that help to form life can only be forged inside the cores of stars that eventually explode. Hence the reason why we are literally "children of the stars."

Quantum mechanics doesn't prove that consciousness creates reality either. The observer could be just a matter of perspective, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory still struggles with relational approaches, and the many-worlds interpretation is just as valid (although it is still lacking direct verification that othrr universes do exist).

Sorry, but, I am only trying to prevent our brains from falling out while we engage in open-minded conversation...

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Summerlander wrote: Sorry, but, I am only trying to prevent our brains from falling out while we engage in open-minded conversation...

Haha I've heard that expression before..."be open-minded, but not so much that your brain falls out."

To be honest, I love entertaining all ideas. I guess a type of intellectual masturbation? If it falls out, I'll adhere to the 5 second rule :D .

Summerlander wrote: We know that, shortly after the big bang, a plasma of energy began to form the lightest elements but that wasn't enough for life to emerge.

I don't mean to nit-pic, but isn't the big bang still just a theory? Albeit the leading theory that has the most accepted evidence in support. Not trying to be contradicting to facts, but isn't it a possibility that it could turn out to be partially, or in the extreme completely, false in light of new evidence?

For awhile it was a leading theory, and for some a "fact," that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Scientific theories are always subject to change. I'm still waiting the promised "theory-of-everything" from the 30's that is always "right around the corner."

Summerlander wrote: Lanza's "life creates the universe and not the other way around" is a major fallacy.

This may be a truth, but then again consciousness is still a mystery to science. There's many explanations, hypothesis, and theories, but no concrete knowledge of how/why/what/when consciousness came to be.

Summerlander wrote: In fact, it took billions of years before life could emerge anywhere in the universe. Why? Because the heavier elements that help to form life can only be forged inside the cores of stars that eventually explode. Hence the reason why we are literally "children of the stars."

Life as we know it, yes. But is it not a possibility that life exists in other forms that we are not aware of yet? What constitutes life? I know this may sound far out, but again just for conversation, could it be a possibility that stars and planets have some form of "life?" The galaxies? And on a grander scale, the universe(s)? Maybe not as we would consider biological life here on Earth, but a different form of. The universe is a big place compared to our little planet, and so far, most of scientific study has been limited to a humanistic view right here on this planet. Humanity has achieved much knowledge, but wouldn't it be a tiny bit on the arrogant side to claim to know concretely how things have come to be without full knowledge of the universe?

If everything was known and completely understood, there would be no further research to be had, but truthfully, there is much more to be known about this mystery we were all thrown into. Again, I'm not an intellectual elite...but I sure love to piggy back the ideas of all the smart MF-ers :) . Even if they are wrong, some stuff is still fun to toss around in the ol' noggin.

Summerlander wrote: Quantum mechanics doesn't prove that consciousness creates reality either.

Not fully...but isn't it still trying to be understood completely by leading scientists/physicists? I'm open to the possibility that it will at least usher in a new way of looking at consciousness, so that maybe a new approach will bring in a more sound understanding. We have come a long way in the past 100years, I can only imagine what the next 1000 years will bring to light.

You and Haggart have a lot of knowledge, beliefs, understandings, so I appreciate all that you are contributing. A very thought-provoking conversation! I also wonder if you two are the only ones brave enough to open a discussion labeled death :lol: . No one else has stated their beliefs/experiences/etc. :( .

In reference to my experience, when I was near to passing out and had the assumption that I was going to kick the bucket right there on that hotel bathroom floor, why did that feeling of overwhelming peace rush over me? I've never been afraid of death, but to feel that amount of peace and contentment seems quite strange. Could that be part of our evolutionary wiring, or could it be explained as just a subjective perspective limited to that one experience?

I'm behind on the posts... but I'll catch up and edit and add to this as I go.

MAKER wrote: "It is the belief that life and biology are central to reality and that life creates the universe, not the other way round."

I've come to that same conclusion. Hard to prove, but I just FEEL it. It has to be! The universe doesn't exist (time, matter, space, energy, waves.......) unless something, anything, perceives it! So what is it without consciousness? Maybe it is consciousness. The universe is perceiving itself!

(Don't care about common day ideas. It was common idea that the world was flat and was the center of the universe! I'm just shooting the breeze, and we're laying on our backs, looking up at the stars, and telling campfire stories for fun. :D )

But that's my current belief.

MAKER wrote: One way or the other, the mystery of it all gives me that tingly feeling in my gut. Experience past physical reality would be an awesome adventure to be had, yet the absence of experience really doesn't seem all that bad either...lazing away eternity in the abyss of nothingness (although I wouldn't even know it :mrgreen: )

Don't give up on your gut. I believe intuition is the mother of invention, not necessity. Let pragmatic scientists sort it out, but I'm an idea-man, and it's OK to come up with far out ideas. No one should fault us for just ideas. And what you said is nothing new to me. When I die, (if time allows it ;) ), I wouldn't know it anyway now would I? Exactly WHEN in the infinite spectrum of the fractal of time does 'someone' die anyway?! :o

I honestly wrote all that without hearing the full dialogue. Now I am up to speed and it's no surprise, me and MAKER have similar ways of expressing ourselves since we have the same personality. (From that other Off-Topic post). But I know Summerlander too, and although uses many quotes and data to back up his ideas, wouldn't be here, interested, if he wasn't one of us. I have a cousin like that too, who always uses quotes from great thinkers to debunk my theories and I welcome it! In fact, I love it! We need a good fact checker to keep us in check.

For me, it all goes back to my same analogy. We're just sitting around a campfire and shooting the breeze. :D

Now what is the fire made of, and what is light and heat unless one is there to experience it.... :o It goes full circle, and this iceberg has only shown it's tip, and it can take a lifetime to figure it out and great philosophers from the past have devoted their lives to it, and they were still in the dark.

It's a good talk, and has influenced some of my lucid dreams lately. I'd share them, but I too found no answer and they were very abstract, without a concrete DC discussion... so hard to comprehend, even for me. They were just images and feelings, but lucid, and me questioning 'non-existence'!

I like quotes to back up my ideas too, and although depressing, this was in my head for the past few days.

"We fat all creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for maggots". - Shakespeare.

Sad, but true. ;) 8-)

It's the circle of life and everything in between!

HAGART wrote: I've come to that same conclusion. Hard to prove, but I just FEEL it. It has to be! The universe doesn't exist (time, matter, space, energy, waves.......) unless something, anything, perceives it! So what is it without consciousness? Maybe it is consciousness. The universe is perceiving itself!

I like the idea, and I've wondered for awhile if matter gives rise to consciousness, or if consciousness gives rise to matter... and depending on the answer, would the universe exist if there were no conscious observers? If the latter turns out to be true, and there is some sort of experiential consciousness after physical death, I'm going to cruise the universe(s). This conversation has led me to taking in as many NDE's I can find...and a lot have experienced dead relatives, angels, etc. all leading them somewhere, BUT if this happens for me, I'm gonna say no to any "party" invites and cruise around experiencing all I want/can. Ol' Grandma and Grandpa will be saying, "Come with us, we are here to take you to heaven." My response: Nope. I gots stuffs to checks outs. :lol:

Like I said earlier, I definitely would like this to be true, although I admit to wishful thinking. I'd rather know and understand the truth, rather than continue to wishfully think.

HAGART wrote: We're just sitting around a campfire and shooting the breeze.

Love the analogy. I need to find people like you and Summerlander in my physical reality, not just my virtual reality. Sharing hypothetical ideas about the mystery of life is a very intriguing and precious aspect of the human experience. It seems too rare in current society.

HAGART wrote: It's a good talk, and has influenced some of my lucid dreams lately.

You lucky son of a gun! I've had a dry spell lately, and not even my trusty McDILD method has been fruitful :) . I've been setting bedtime intentions for even a regular dream with some sort of relation to the topic, but nada as of yet.

I found an interesting discussion that dates back to 2012 that relates to this topic, although it was based on a poll about thoughts on religion. There's a lot of really good ideas, and I noticed Summerlander posted a few times (There's 64 pages, so I haven't quite read every single one). Here's the link if anyone is interested:

http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1014

An idea that was discussed was in relation to the universe not existing if there were no conscious observers, but how did the universe decide to create consciousness (ie conscious observers) if it were not already conscious? We are the universe getting to know itself quite literally.

Sometimes I wonder if "God" is just a poetic expression of the expansive permeation of consciousness that was understood by a few extremely smart people, but has been perverted and misunderstood by a large amount of "average" smart people.

"GOD" was founded in a dream and is an archetype. Ever notice how (a Christian God, for example) looks like Zues? And any other God, who fits that description, has been proven to not exist in other cultures, and is regarded as fairytale. But apparently only one always exists and it's the true God. The God of America? (I know you Maker, and Summerlander, so we are on the same page, so stick with this.... I have a point.)

I've noticed one thing in common with them all: They all have beards! :P It's just the 'old-man' archetype that we look up to and adore. A Grandpa figure, if you will. It comes from deep within.

I see them in lucid dreams all the time.

I'm preaching to the choir with you two, but for anyone else listening.... truly listen! I know I'm right!

( I didn't respond fully to what you said, MAKER. I like to cause trouble for others listening in! LOL ) ;) Again, I know I'm right! )

But it also relates to the main topic. I already shared my traumatic experience and we are friends...

But I still think, love it or hate it, that we are all robots, incapable of controlling our hair and nail growth much like a plant, and self awareness may actually be a curse, not a blessing. And to bring it all together, "I may go to hell for what I said (in some cultures),... but at least I'll be with my friends down there." :D

I don't believe in God, and when I die, if there is an afterlife at all, the way the Bible describes it, I'll be partying with a ton of sinners. And sinners throw great parties! 8-)

(Given my belief though, there will be incomprehensible nothingness... so what the hell? I GOT NOTHING TO LOSE! ;)

HAGART wrote: "I may go to hell for what I said (in some cultures),... but at least I'll be with my friends down there."

If we are already dead, what real "power" would any hell have over us? Resistance by non-compliance! Let's just break out and start our own club...we could call it the "Hell's Angels." Would have to check with copy write though :lol: .

HAGART wrote: But I still think, love it or hate it, that we are all robots, incapable of controlling our hair and nail growth much like a plant, and self awareness may actually be a curse, not a blessing.

Robots longing for the truth of our existence. Perceiving any amount of control is just an illusion. We can interact, but cause and effect has the ultimate control. Total acceptance may be the key to our enlightenment.

I did my old, "EDIT TOO MUCH" trick again. I was in the middle of editing it when you posted. (No worries though)

I'm a perfectionist and when I want to talk religion or politics, I revise so much. I want to get it right.... Anyway, I'm happy with my last one and will keep it. I just changed a few things at the end, and am trying to be a more forceful and confident writer and still not offend... (hard to do).

I don't apologies.

MAKER wrote: I don't mean to nit-pic, but isn't the big bang still just a theory? Albeit the leading theory that has the most accepted evidence in support. Not trying to be contradicting to facts, but isn't it a possibility that it could turn out to be partially, or in the extreme completely, false in light of new evidence?

It is a theory but not in our quotidian sense of the word. A scientific theory is different in that it is backed up by a lot of calculations and observations. If the scientific theory survives the test of time, then it is a good one - especially when it can be applied successfully in improving the quality of our lives. And some scientific theories are so obvious that you might as well regard them as facts, i.e. gravity, evolution, Hubble's law etc. The Big Bang has overwhelming evidence to back it up, too. The most famous evidence for it is the cosmic background radiation. And let's not forget that a good theory often leads to predictions which are later confirmed to be true by scientists. Example: A Higgs field was predicted and later detected.

Scientists have an equivalent for our quotidian use of the word "theory," too. It's called a hypothesis (inferior to the scientific theory and still requires a lot of work). Science follows the evidence. In other words, the current paradigm is in accordance to where we've got so far. It is not about beliefs or dogmas. Scientific studies are constantly reviewing themselves in light of new evidence and discoveries. So far the Big Bang theory appears to be solid so there is no reason to believe otherwise. The current paradigm would shift, however, if a compelling contraposition was presented - and one that would have to be contiguous, I'd imagine, in accordance to what has already been established from observation. :|

MAKER wrote: consciousness is still a mystery to science. There's many explanations, hypothesis, and theories, but no concrete knowledge of how/why/what/when consciousness came to be.

Again, this is no reason to presuppose consciousness as the eternal source of, or the quintessence of, the physical universe. (Especially when the evidence seems to weigh in favour of the opposite - seriously, take a look at what neuroscience has accomplished over a century and a half.) :geek:

MAKER wrote: What constitutes life?

SPONCH = Sulphur, phosphorus, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon (mostly), hydrogen. Complexly arranged, of course. We need these elements in order to produce life as we know it. ;)

MAKER wrote: Humanity has achieved much knowledge, but wouldn't it be a tiny bit on the arrogant side to claim to know concretely how things have come to be without full knowledge of the universe?

Scientists don't claim to know concretely how the universe came about (although they can come up with scenarios more substantial and credible than the religious assertion that a god magically created the universe). They have great theories which are based on everything that we have been able to measure so far. A true scientist that claims certainty about something better have the full facts to justify his certainty - in which case it would not be arrogant of him to claim to know something. 8-)

They can claim to know what happens in experiments that have been conducted, for example, because these can be verified. The latest combination of cosmology and physics paints the picture that the universe arose from nothing because nothingness is quantum mechanically unstable and the potential for expansion is too great. So, from this, we can gather that no gods or deities are required to bring about the cosmos. In fact, it would have taken a miracle to have prevented the universe from popping into being (all according to what we do understand so far). So, since we are here, no miracle took place and nothing willed us into being. It all inevitably popped out of nothing. (See Victor Stenger and Lawrence Krauss for an in depth introduction of this picture.) :P

MAKER wrote: If everything was known and completely understood, there would be no further research to be had, but truthfully, there is much more to be known about this mystery we were all thrown into. Again, I'm not an intellectual elite...but I sure love to piggy back the ideas of all the smart MF-ers :) . Even if they are wrong, some stuff is still fun to toss around in the ol' noggin.

They are just being professional and avoiding beliefs or premature conclusions. The observable universe is mostly made of dark matter, something they are still trying to suss out. Scientists are very open about the puzzles they are currently working on. There is no room for pretending to know more than what they understand. The scientific community quickly weeds out the pseudo-scientists with peer reviews. :twisted:

MAKER wrote: ...but isn't it still trying to be understood completely by leading scientists/physicists? I'm open to the possibility that it will at least usher in a new way of looking at consciousness, so that maybe a new approach will bring in a more sound understanding. We have come a long way in the past 100years, I can only imagine what the next 1000 years will bring to light.

Quantum theory is successfully applied in many areas of our lives but it is true that the nature of reality at its roots is not fully understood. You often hear physicists say, "we don't understand how it works but it works" or "shut up and calculate." It is possible that quantum mechanics play their role in the phenomenon of consciousness. We don't quite know how gravity works at the quantum level either. Give it time. We have come a long way, as you have pointed out, in the last 100 years, so, we do deserve credit. :)

MAKER wrote: In reference to my experience, when I was near to passing out and had the assumption that I was going to kick the bucket right there on that hotel bathroom floor, why did that feeling of overwhelming peace rush over me?

My best guess is that your endorphins kicked in. Something to do with your inherent aptitude responsible for the galvanisation of your reward system under extremely stressful or traumatic situations. People can experience this when they take drugs like heroin, ecstasy, or even psilocybin. Meditation and lucid dreaming can also produce similar effects. :|

MAKER wrote: I've had a dry spell lately, and not even my trusty McDILD method has been fruitful :) . I've been setting bedtime intentions for even a regular dream with some sort of relation to the topic, but nada as of yet.

I'm curious how long your definition of 'dry spell' is. Before the lucid dream I had yesterday, it was 9 days without one. To me that's normal. How long has it been for you?

Summerlander wrote: SPONCH = Sulphur, phosphorus, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon (mostly), hydrogen. Complexly arranged, of course. We need these elements in order to produce life as we know it.

How do you define 'life'? I believe you can create an insect-like robot, or even a bacteria-like nanobot, that senses it's environment, reacts to it, and makes replicas of itself with slight 'errors' or mutations. Set it loose in the wild and it will evolve in time, perhaps even forming colonies. It should, in theory, act like any other simple life form and perhaps in time even develop self awareness. But it is not made of SPONCH. (It would be a great science-fiction premise)

That's just physical life. If you created an artificial intelligence without a body it too may be considered 'alive', and even have a will to live like HAL 9000. (2001: A Space Odyssey)

Summerlander wrote: SPONCH = Sulphur, phosphorus, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon (mostly), hydrogen. Complexly arranged, of course. We need these elements in order to produce life as we know it. ;)

HAGART wrote: How do you define 'life'? I believe you can create an insect-like robot, or even a bacteria-like nanobot, that senses it's environment, reacts to it, and makes replicas of itself with slight 'errors' or mutations. Set it loose in the wild and it will evolve in time, perhaps even forming colonies. It should, in theory, act like any other simple life form and perhaps in time even develop self awareness. But it is not made of SPONCH.

That's the idea I was getting after (Although I may have not articulated it well). Life as we know it is limited to the scope of Earth (so far), so there is only speculation left, but by no means is that a definitive conclusion of life.

There is already AI at present, albeit rudimentary and limited to the scope of present software planning. Soon, technology will surpass the intelligence of the average man, and then eventually far past the total of mankind...at least that's the direction that technology is heading, and the idea that Hagart has put forth will not be in the realm of science fiction.

But to push the envelope further, could it not be possible that there is already life in the universe that does not adhere to the Earth structure of SPONCH? I said this earlier, and although unproven and possibly far from fact, but couldn't the planets have some sort of "life" or consciousness that mankind has yet to understand? The Earth being a live being (just for conversation sake), couldn't all Earth life be likened to it's cells, water likened to blood, etc. etc.?

Summerlander wrote: The current paradigm would shift, however, if a compelling contraposition was presented - and one that would have to be contiguous, I'd imagine, in accordance to what has already been established from observation.

I agree, in theory, but not necessarily in practice. Other theories that do have creed often take time to be assimilated. There is much profit in the accepted paradigm, and those with power within this paradigm do adhere to self-preservation, as would any rational human being... such as careers, reputation, etc. I am NOT saying that new research does not go unnoticed or arbitrarily thrown out, but there is often a lot of headway for new research to overcome first.

Summerlander wrote: Again, this is no reason to presuppose consciousness as the eternal source of, or the quintessence of, the physical universe. (Especially when the evidence seems to weigh in favour of the opposite - seriously, take a look at what neuroscience has accomplished over a century and a half.)

Very valid point; do not presuppose. But be open to this coming forth through further research. All possibilities, in essence, should be allowed they're due process. Again, I'm not arguing for or against, but rather stating that there are plenty of possibilities and probabilities to be considered.

Summerlander wrote: My best guess is that your endorphins kicked in. Something to do with your inherent aptitude responsible for the galvanisation of your reward system under extremely stressful or traumatic situations.

Thank you for your opinion. I too figured it had to be some sort of biological defense. I know this may sound a tad bit morbid, but my curiosity was also peaked in the extreme. I didn't want to die, but I was ok with it because of that peaceful feeling...and very curious to witness the process that unfolded after, whether there was some sort of experience after or not.

HAGART wrote: I'm curious how long your definition of 'dry spell' is.

About a month and a half! After the new year, I was participating in dream experiments and my LD went through the roof, but stopped around late March, early April, and now nothing. Although, to be honest, I have not been keeping up with LD methods until recently.

MAKER wrote: About a month and a half!

OK, I admit. That's a dry spell! I'd have frustration too. I'm still unable to give advice when it's a hit or miss even for myself. I was just wondering about that, and you have every right to call it a dry-spell. :x

I think I said this earlier, but when you think about it, the Earth is a macrocosm of life itself that infested it. The universe is a fractal, and there are patterns in the minuscule that perpetuate into the macro-scale. Why would life exist at all if it doesn't exist everywhere?

You can compare a bacteria to a human and say one is more sentient, but it's such a fine line, and where does one end and the other begin when bacteria live inside what we call 'us', and oxygen is constantly being absorbed and shedded back into the 'in between area' of organisms (the 'universe', but it's still trapped on this planet) and carbon dioxide is re-absorbed like the earth is a giant intestine. Maybe we're are all in the gut of a giant whale known as Earth... 8-) (Got poetic ;) 8-) )

That's my rant for the day. I like getting this off my chest and having fun with it.

HAGART wrote: How do you define 'life'? I believe you can create an insect-like robot, or even a bacteria-like nanobot, that senses it's environment, reacts to it, and makes replicas of itself with slight 'errors' or mutations. Set it loose in the wild and it will evolve in time, perhaps even forming colonies. It should, in theory, act like any other simple life form and perhaps in time even develop self awareness. But it is not made of SPONCH. (It would be a great science-fiction premise)

That's just physical life. If you created an artificial intelligence without a body it too may be considered 'alive', and even have a will to live like HAL 9000. (2001: A Space Odyssey)

Could we say that the robots mimmick life rather than defining them as a new form of life? What is life? What is this weird concept born out of our minds? We have obviously made distinctions based on how much we have been able to perceive, but, how well have we defined life? Is life always conscious? What is consciousness? How can we even study it when we can't even agree on what it is? Just some food for thought here, guys! :mrgreen:

MAKER wrote: But to push the envelope further, could it not be possible that there is already life in the universe that does not adhere to the Earth structure of SPONCH? I said this earlier, and although unproven and possibly far from fact, but couldn't the planets have some sort of "life" or consciousness that mankind has yet to understand? The Earth being a live being (just for conversation sake), couldn't all Earth life be likened to it's cells, water likened to blood, etc. etc.?

Perhaps this universe is nothing but a tiny cell which belongs to something larger (whether this thing is alive or not). The universe is definitely headed for extinction, so, it is possible that we may live inside an dying creature - if this one isn't dead and decaying already! :shock:

Summerlander wrote: Could we say that the robots mimmick life rather than defining them as a new form of life? What is life? What is this weird concept born out of our minds? We have obviously made distinctions based on how much we have been able to perceive, but, how well have we defined life? Is life always conscious? What is consciousness? How can we even study it when we can't even agree on what it is? Just some food for thought here, guys! :mrgreen:

I had a reflective afternoon looking at dandelions. Most think they are a weed, but never truly understand them. I noticed that some had flowered with yellow pedals and others made that sphere of white cotton ball we all know about. And you blow on it and watch the white 'parachutes' float through the air. But have you ever truly looked at it and examined it? OR how it transitions from one to the other seemingly overnight? There were others in between that state that I picked apart and dissected with my hands, just having fun, but I realized something I have kept saying and will say it again.

ALL LIFE IS AN ALGORITHM. (Brain activity, or not, is moot. It's secondary.)

I can still find beauty in it, but it's so mathematical it is like a program! (Follow it down the line and hence, I too, like it or not, am a program as well.)

Designed by cause and effect, not a superior programmer. Or if there was, I'd like to have a good chat and come up with the Beta Version 2, because the first one had some flaws! 8-) ;)

But what came first? The chicken or the egg, life or mathematics? It's hard to answer and I am not the first person to question it. Absloute 0, or death, is hard to define when we are 1. (If you catch my drift). ;)

Zero is complete and perhaps 1 is the loneliest number... poetic song. :)

The forerunner of the chicken. :mrgreen:

So I've been thinking on this discussion trying to collect my thoughts about this and that, and I came across some Alan Watts the other day and I've been pondering a new idea lately... No matter the point of view, we are the universe and the universe is us.

According to the big bang theory (not the hit TV show :D ), the universe started from a (the?) singularity, but became unstable and burst forth all that we can observe today. Without the ecosystem, there would be no us. Without the Earth, there would be no ecosystem. Without the solar system, there would be no Earth. Without the the universe, there would be no galaxy for our solar system to thrive. Etc. etc.

From this standpoint, couldn't it be argued that the universe is conscious, even if only through us and other conscious sentient beings? I was watering my vegetable garden earlier and was thinking how this would relate to death, and I found a little bit of solace to understand that when we die, we don't necessarily "go somewhere." Rather, we return to the universe (in the sense that our bodies become compost, since we are not and cannot be separate from the universe). Whether or not we remain conscious in someway is debatable and cannot yet be verified, except through the personal experience of death.

This reminded me of the saying "we are all one." I never fully understood it and kind of thought of the saying as some spiritual phrase of generality, but from the standpoint that we quite literally are the universe, although having a seemingly separate experience, we are "one" with it.

Some questions to ponder:

HAGART wrote: ALL LIFE IS AN ALGORITHM.

Evidence supports this, but who/what made the program for this to be the case? Could the algorithm change over time? (a type of mathematical evolution)

Summerlander wrote: Perhaps this universe is nothing but a tiny cell which belongs to something larger (whether this thing is alive or not).

If we are "alive" (even if we are robots, we have some form of life), then the universe is alive in the sense of the idea I stated previously. It lives through us, and us through it.

And here's a fun one to think about, where are you? (physically, not the "I" we discussed earlier) Where is the Earth? The galaxy? All in the universe, right? But where is the universe? If there were other universes, then we could only say in relation to those other universes, but where would those be? :shock:

Aparently scientists have detected gravitational waves from the Big Bang which appear to indicate that the power of inflation was so great that, in all likelihood, it must have produced innumerable "bubble" universes. (One wonders if this was a symptom of a titanic organism growing - perhaps we live inside some creature's expanding brain!)

The recent discovery about the gravitational reverberations have been published online by National Geographic. And it gets weirder: not only is it quite possible that we live in an ocean of bubble universes, which, if its space-time fabric is infinite in all directions with a finite range of possible ways in which particles can manifest dictate that replicas of you and your entire life must emerge (so much for finding meaning in coincidences on our petty little planet!), it gets weirder: at the quantum level all possible scenarios appear to play out before the superpositions are decohered by measurement - which implies many versions of our own universe occurring locally (every time you are faced with a selection of choices you are facing "daughter" universes.

This incredible multiversal circus, believe it or not, is gaining credibility and reminds us of how insignificant we really are. If you are religious, or superstitious, and believe that coincidences have some transcendental or supernatural meaning, like a divine sign or a message, prepare to have your delusions shattered along with your exalted ego: somewhere, somewhen, parsecs far far away, the Earth and its lifetime have been replicated to the minutest detail - not because a higher intelligent power decided upon this, but because the laws of nature and probability make the noneventuation of such an impossibility when infinity comes into play. It's random and deterministic at the same time, and, last but not least, natural.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

(I was talkative again, and just banging out ideas without a fully developed focus or idea, but sometimes it's a great way to trigger something.)

I was thinking more about this too, and was reminded of Summerlander's question in another off-topic, topic: Why is there anything at all?

"Nothing" actually makes more sense to me than "something".

Why is it that we only perceive waves? Maybe we are waves and everything is. Light and sound and some speculate that matter itself is a wave. When you touch something you actually are never in contact with it. The atoms don't touch, yet we feel it. :o All of reality as we know it is interpreting waves (which can be described mathematically without emotion), but they are an enigma to me. What is a wave anyway?

I have an out of the box idea with no science to back it up, but if an object moves through space, and has something orbiting it, that orbiting object's location in time, when graphed, would look like a wave. Or as it's orbiting the moving object it would appear to accelerate and slow down, and that too, when graphed, would look like a wave. (I can see it in my head and feel free to ask for clarification). Simply put, two things I've noticed about this universe: 1.There are a heck of a lot of waves 2. Everything seems to be in an orbit. I think there's a connection. And you can't perceive anything unless there is something to compare it to. (Relativity?).

I think of the 'big bang' as a still pond that a rock fell into and created ripples. If the pond was still there would be no waves to perceive and consciousness wouldn't know it was conscious even if there was one. Maybe there only is consciousness and it was the one who threw the rock, and we are in a shared dream, but not the dreamer, so must abide by physical laws by that main consciousness when awake.

I know, MAKER is as intrigued by sacred geometry as I am and I can't help but think about "The Flower of Life" and a good explanation of it. It's like consciousness is born (don't know how or who threw the rock), but it sees a reality it made, a universe of some kind, and it is a circle around the center of the individual. Then he/she/it travels to the edge of the circle and does it again, creating a new one that overlaps the original, creating a shared space like a Venne Diagram. Then it happens again and again and again.... That's just something I am reminded of and may, or may not, help.

Yet more food for thought. Our brain certainly looks like an intestine so it's fitting. What do both have in common? Maximum surface area in a small space. (And some have shit for brains... :lol: )

That's my daily rant yet again. I like to have a few beers, go online and blab. Thanks for listening! 8-)

Summerlander wrote: Aparently scientists have detected gravitational waves from the Big Bang which appear to indicate that the power of inflation was so great that, in all likelihood, it must have produced innumerable "bubble" universes.

This reminds me of the very first "Cosmos" episode (remake version, not the Carl Sagan version). I wonder if everything just keeps going out or down infinitely in a telescoping manner. I'll look up the article, thanks for the info!

HAGART wrote: I know, MAKER is as intrigued by sacred geometry as I am and I can't help but think about "The Flower of Life" and a good explanation of it. It's like consciousness is born (don't know how or who threw the rock), but it sees a reality it made, a universe of some kind, and it is a circle around the center of the individual. Then he/she/it travels to the edge of the circle and does it again, creating a new one that overlaps the original, creating a shared space like a Venne Diagram. Then it happens again and again and again...

I can't remember where I saw this before in a video demonstration, but was really cool to think about. Sacred geometry is definitely a cool subject, and goes along with the idea that everything is an algorithm!

So, I finally had a LD today, which is very on subject. It was long, so I'll get to the juicy part.

I had picked up a very beautiful blonde girl (was driving in a car) and after talking, she told me she was dying. I said sorry, then asked her what happens when we die. She said, "I go back to being my true self when I die." In the dream, I intuitively took that to mean that we are some other being or self (true self) that is manifesting itself in different forms. To what end, I didn't ask and she didn't tell. I then told her that if she was a dreamer and really had a physical body, she should search for me, and I gave her my full name. Shortly after, we started getting hot and heavy and the dream faded from my excitement :cry: .

There was a lot more, but that's the only part that really pertains to this thread. I'm still on my LD high :mrgreen: !

MAKER wrote: In the dream, I intuitively took that to mean that we are some other being or self (true self) that is manifesting itself in different forms.

Your intuition is more important than the actual words the DC uses. Sometimes we 'just know' what they mean. Right or wrong, it's important to make note of that when recalling our dreams.

I was driving a car a few years ago, awake, and no cute blond to get 'hot and heavy' with, :cry: . And something hit me. (not a deer). An idea hit me. I felt like there was a dimension of life, like a blob of white, energy, plasma that flows like water, and it was exuding into this dimension taking whatever form it could! And when we die we return to that blob of love. One singular life.

This was after reading many near death experiences, but I still can't shake the feeling. Sometimes our day dreams are as profound as a lucid dream. (My day dream could have used a cute blond though). ;)

I was trying to look up George Carlin's reference to the 'big electron', but got this instead. I never saw it before, but you might relate and enjoy this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwxnrCPz5EY

Others think of life and death and somehow make it amusing as comedians. This is a song someone made out of it, and I think it relates and lightens the mood on it. I know MAKER's mood is lightened after his LD high - I know the feeling! :D

HAGART wrote: Your intuition is more important than the actual words the DC uses. Sometimes we 'just know' what they mean.

Definitely agree. I had one where I was sucked up into space after telling my dream to show me what it needed. Without a word, I understood all that it was showing me about the universe and its workings.

HAGART wrote: An idea hit me. I felt like there was a dimension of life, like a blob of white, energy, plasma that flows like water, and it was exuding into this dimension taking whatever form it could! And when we die we return to that blob of love. One singular life.

An awesome thought! That's pretty to similar to gnostic philosophy, and to what DC's and LDs have presented to me. Although, I do take all that I "discover" in LDs with a grain of salt as the answers given to my questions are most likely heavily influenced by the information I take in.

HAGART wrote: I was trying to look up George Carlin's reference to the 'big electron', but got this instead. I never saw it before, but you might relate and enjoy this:

Big coincidence that you posted this...I was actually on a ride throughout the whole dream. Another DC was driving, and I was in the passenger seat. We picked up the blonde in a traffic jam :D .

Not really related, but I know we talked about recurring DCs in another thread sometime back. The blonde wasn't a recurring DC, BUT I have had many dreams (both lucid and normal) with a blonde girl that always grabs my attention. In one LD, the blonde girl told me we were going to meet in the future, which is why I told this girl if she was another dreamer to search for me. I like the idea of the dream space being both shared and personal, although I have no experience of that being true. If a blonde ever hits me up because of a dream, I will definitely let you know!

HAGART wrote: I know MAKER's mood is lightened after his LD high - I know the feeling

Here's another non-related question: What do your most profound LD highs feel like? For me, it's almost a sense of hyper-excitement with a profound sense of peace and reflection on the dream.

MAKER wrote: What do your most profound LD highs feel like? For me, it's almost a sense of hyper-excitement with a profound sense of peace and reflection on the dream.

For me, it's like I just got off a thrilling virtual-reality amusement park ride, and I feel more calm and Zen-like than usual. Things don't irritate me and I don't sweat the small stuff.

Reminds me of adrenalin junkies and surfers. I guess it would be the same for everybody - A great thrill leaves the mind calm. And lucid dreams are certainly thrilling!

Their the best rides I've ever been on in this theme park we call, 'Life'. :ugeek:

HAGART wrote: ... P.S. This bewildered me for the past few days. I heard there are more bacteria in your body living free than cells in your own body. (not sure if that's true or not, but if so) We are like a microchasm of planet Earth! Makes you question who you really are if your own body is mostly not you and where does 'you' or 'I' begin and where does it end ...

I was just browsing this forum semi-randomly and saw the above quote: that's interesting, that's a topic dear to me. Yes, it is true, the bacteria living in use outnumber our cells by a factor 10. Most of them live in our gut/bowel. I have dived deep into this stuff for the past several years (from a scientific perspective, no woo-woo), and have numerous personal first-hand experiences on how these bacteria do directly influence our brain function and our minds. It goes both ways: our mind influences the bacteria colonies, and they do influence our minds, sometimes to the point of insanity (through immune reactions and directly through the chemicals they manufacture right there in our guts, just think fungus and psychedelics). It is mind-blowing to think that many people in mental institutions could possibly get dramatically better through well-targeted antimicrobial treatments, complete changes in diet, and probiotics/cultured foods (and fasten your seat-belts: future stool transplants). And it's funny, I have had the exact same thought recently: our bodies are reflections of our Earth ecosystem (and vice-versa), and the damage done to Earth through pesticides, toxins, intensive agriculture techniques, etc.... is reflected in the damage done to our gut ecosystems. IMO, chronic illnesses, allergies, cancers, etc... have a lot to do with this. This is starting to come out big time in mainstream medical research, finally!

Nice piece of info there. Thanks, Karin. B-)

[ Post made via Android ] Image

I have come to terms with the concept of "self" being a construct of the mind, an ever-changing, whimsical illusion up in the air, swirling like a whirlwind. Now, I am starting to realize that even my body is not as concrete as I thought it was.

I already knew that with every breath my body physically changes as new molecules are absorbed and others are expelled, not to mention shedding skin cells and eating and defecating. And it never goes anywhere. It's always stuck on Earth and reabsorbed again by other life.

But now, as you have elaborated on it, Karin, I am realizing that my body is even MORE hard to pinpoint. It is also a symbiotic relationship with many other organisms, each with their own 'self'. :o

Where does it begin and where does it end? Even though I can't explain it, I like my 'microchasm of planet Earth' analogy. That also means the earth functions the same way and is constantly seeking homeostasis and gets 'sick' if it can't achieve it. And just like a fractal, we are in the middle of an infinite spectrum of that... "life force?"

Sounds spiritual or "JEDI"... but all I mean is that mathematically it all seems to work in the large scale and small scale, but there is no size at all if we dismiss that our mind and body have no size either.... :o :shock: :o (It's hard to wrap my mind around...)

HAGART wrote: Sounds spiritual or "JEDI"... but all I mean is that mathematically it all seems to work in the large scale and small scale, but there is no size at all if we dismiss that our mind and body have no size either.... :o :shock: :o (It's hard to wrap my mind around...)

There is a beautiful pantheism conveyed there which is redolent of Spinoza's freethinking (particularly where it is stated that God is nothing but the infinite universe). Spinoza, to put his philosophy bluntly and in the most no-nonsense way possible, implied that God is everywhere and nowhere (not the God of monotheism) - nature itself. He had trashed the Torah, was kicked out of the Jewish circle, and was labelled a heretic. As a great philosopher, he set himself on the right path when he criticised all religion - he could see through it and was only being honest! The spirit of secularism lived in him for sure...

*"Spinoza's Ethics argued that God and the infinite Universe are one and the same thing. God isn't a person, and didn't create the world with a purpose in mind. All things, including human thoughts and actions, are inevitable consequences of earlier things, and ultimately follow a causal chain of events. He argued that the mind and the body are one and the same thing, a position described as neutral monism. Spinoza advised people to join with like-minded individuals into societies that promote clear reasoning. Lastly, he explained how to overcome one's emotions and fear of death." *

http://pantheist.weebly.com/spinoza.html

Spinoza, like John Stuart Mill, influenced the great mathematician Bertrand Russell (yes, the one who discovered* Russell's Paradox**), as you can see in the following lecture where he evinces his atheistic stance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0F6J8o7AAe8

*Russell's Paradox: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/

I do not see any supernatural forces at work in anything. Even consciousness, which currently remains a puzzle, shouldn't be prematurely said to have a supernatural origin. Given what neuroscience shows us so far, in particular where the mind can be affected in a number of ways when the brain is faulty, I deem it more likely that the self is, to put it in the words of Norretranders, a "user illusion." An illusion, which, I strongly suspect, comes about by a peculiar and incidental relationship between the macro and the micro such as the one we observe in the human brain. It has already been demonstrated that gamma brainwaves, which play an important role in heightening consciousness, have their roots in the quantum realm. But let's not forget that, ostensibly, a Tonomian brain system in the classical realm is also needed.

What am I saying? Am I saying that there is no afterlife? That's what it looks like. I am saying that, once your brain - in the peculiar way that it is arranged which promotes your individual sense of self - is destroyed, you cease to be. In short: death means death. :twisted:

If your body (including brain) slowly turns into another being, let's say a fly, like the classic movie, you're sense of self would cease to be and you would die for all intense and purposes. It's actually a very 'existential' film. (I put it in quotes because I am never quite sure what the definition of 'existentialism' is).

That also means, hypothetically, you could turn a fly into a human and bring back the dead! (Just need to implant the right memories). Perhaps that will happen a million years from now and when you die it will be like a blink of an eye and you are reborn again a million years from now when your clone is created on a different planet. (Be careful what you wish for though. The future may not be friendly, and we may be mere lab rats or slaves for an alien race!). I watch too many movies......

Another classic movie I am reminded of is The Incredible Shrinking Man. It's an old black and white movie, and on the surface is a sci-fi thriller, but it gets deep at the end. Dare I say, existential? I haven't seen it in ages, but I remember in the end it was very thought-provoking. I don't want to give it away though, but it made me think about our concept of size and just how small can you get and still exist?

A note regarding the impermanence of the body versus the permanence of the sense of identity during a lifetime:

"Every one of us completely regenerates our own skin every 7 days. A cut heals itself and disappears in a week or two. Every single cell in our skeleton is replaced every 7 years." (http://stemcell.stanford.edu/research/)

The longest lived cells in the body are neurons. Those were thought to last for the lifetime, but even that is getting challenged, just like the concept of adult brain plasticity is relatively new. There is a lot we don't know about the brain yet...

"The most current research suggests that neural stem cells can generate many, if not all, of the different types of neurons found in the brain and the nervous system." (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/brain_basics/ninds_neuron.htm)

For Summerlander it is always the same. "Death means death" Yes if that is what he believes why not. But must it always be rammed down our throat? Summerlander I don't say you are wrong. OK all your studying and experience gave you your present knowledge and conviction, and now that is it. I with my 82 years have mine with a big but. I am still learning and if I come across for me new data, and it makes sense to me I adopt it. I don't say dead means death. I say: Death could mean death, to the physical anyhow, and no memory of the person who occupied that body, but how about of the spark of the divine which leaves the body at death. I don't say that is so, but it makes sense to me. I like your other contribution to our forums, and that comes from my heart. :)

No problem. Thanks erichsa. To Karin: It is certainly true that you are not and never were your, say, your 5-year-old self. Quite literally, that child is dead. Her cells are long gone and have been replaced by what makes you today. And yet, you feel like you were that little girl. This is an illusion. You remember experiencing what she experienced because the memories have been passed on from the "old system" into the new one. Despite the overall cell replacement, the stencil remained, and the essential memories for the preservation of the user illusion were retained. You could quite easily forget who you were if you suffered a blow to your head though. Remember the film Multiplicity where the first clone thought he was the original? It's a bit like that.

This, to me, only reinforces physicalism and how much we have to learn from it, as well as highlighting how premature the certainty for the divine and the numinous is. That, to me, is what is belief-centric and a product of wishful thinking even if the individual doesn't realise it.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Summerlander wrote: To Karin: It is certainly true that you are not and never were your, say, your 5-year-old self. Quite literally, that child is dead. Her cells are long gone and have been replaced by what makes you today. And yet, you feel like you were that little girl. This is an illusion. You remember experiencing what she experienced because the memories have been passed on from the "old system" into the new one. Despite the overall cell replacement, the stencil remained, and the essential memories for the preservation of the user illusion were retained.

I was going to say the same thing. It makes you redefine 'death'. My 5 year-old-self is dead in both body and mind because it ceases to exist. What about my 5-second-ago-self? It too is dead!

Within the 5 seconds of writing that, I took a breath, replacing some oxygen atoms in my body and probably shedded some dead skin cells too without knowing it. But this vessel is not 'me'. The oxygen is not living and the skin cells were dead already, waiting to fall off like leaves. But the 'me' I was 5 seconds ago is gone. I have a new memory of writing that last sentence and now have new thoughts. I am 5 seconds more mature.

But we don't notice because it happens so quickly every second of every day. We only notice after some time has passed, usually a year, a made up cycle, and that's why one's birthday is important universally in all cultures. People celebrate a person's changing mind and body.

If my 5-second-ago-self is dead, so is my 1-second-ago-self, and my nano-second-ago-self, and so on, cutting time down forever for infinity until you realize you have to redefine what life and death is! :o

Maybe waking life is an illusion, and therefore so is death. :ugeek:

Reminds me of the movie, Waking Life, and here's a transcript from a scene that is pertinent to what we're talking about:

http://wakinglifemovie.net/Transcript/Chapter/7

Some food for thought:

Our minds don't like empty space. We fill in the gaps constantly whether it's the blind spots in our field of vision or the Swiss cheese of our memory. The mind doesn't tolerate nothingness without a fight.

So too does the universe. If there is an empty space, atoms will try to rush in to fill it at any cost and it's a very strong force. The universe doesn't tolerate nothingness either.

Coincidence?

What's more, even the five-year-old's memories and conscious experiences are long gone. What we get is reconstructions representing something like what it was like - and because of this false memories are inevitable and taken to be accurate representations.

On nothingness: It would take a miracle to preserve it in this universe. The Big Bang was inevitable, and, as it turns out, the vacuum of space is a vast something made of space-time fabric with a myriad virtual particles.

If one wants true nothingness one has to examine what is between two objects (two somethings) that are attached to each other. No space-time between the. Nothing.

The mind certainly seems to mirror the natural avoidance of nothingness. The mind is busy and noisy as it is the universe itself, in conscious mode. It is aware of being busy in the form of human beings. One day, the universe will "die" (all stars will blow out) and there will be no more conscious beings to observe it. When that happens, the universe will truly sleep, and we will be as dead as the moon.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

If the universe 'dies' off then it is not infinite, and neither was time. If that is so, then in the grand scheme of things time is irrelevant. 1 second, 1 year, a billion years... all happen in an instant as though it never even existed. It only exists the way it does because something is perceiving it. (YOU).

Or maybe the universe IS infinite.... that's a whole new ball game!

I know MAKER doesn't mind when these topics go off on a tangent, but to look at life and death, or existence and non-existence, we must first agree upon whether the universe and time are infinite or not. That changes everything!

(It's really hard to answer that, but just something to think about).

All that I know, Is that in this mess of existence, in the star dust that this planet was formed from, I am alive and contained within a unique physical manifestation. I am the universe experiencing itself. I am a thought, a thought thinking independently while making more thoughts. Through Carbon and Calcium and Iron and electrical charges I exist, and even the words I type only hold meaning to my perceptive standpoint.

I do not know what an individual atom perceives, or if it does perceive, and I also claim no control over said atom. all I know is that I am a random but precise amalgamation of these pieces, and someday I will be broken back down into these individual parts, indivisibly, until my perception no longer does justice to the realms or manifestations in time and space.

There is no such being based off of Man's image that created the concurrence of the universe and all that exists. To think that there is a being of omnipotence based after ourselves, in my opinion, is arrogant, selfish, and one sided. Never has a carbon organism before us done such a drastic phenomena, and with this forced self entitlement, we will see our collapse.

To believe in the Aether is not to believe in nothing. It is to substantiate and look forward to rejoining the deconstructed forms of our being and planet when the time comes, and to look forward to a realm or plane of existence that is beyond our current perception.

Peace and love to all, I am me, I hold no title in belief, and I wish no harm to anyone who thinks differently. I control myself, and that is it. And within my self control I find peace. -Hex535

I love your third paragraph. It is so irreligious. So secular. It could come from an atheist. Or a pantheist akin to Spinoza. Or even a Deist like Thomas Paine. I appreciate your sentiment. I too am anoyed by the " lord created the universe with you in mind and He loves you, don't you know..." malarkey. It's vain, narcissistic, egotistical, and a tad solipsistic. Why couldn't the Creator have cockroaches or bacteria in mind when He made the universe? The latter rule the planet, don't they? :-D

[ Post made via Android ] Image