Is there an afterlife?

A Physicist’s View of the Afterlife: Weird Quantum Physics http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/936107-a-physicists-view-of-the-afterlife-weird-quantum-physics/

The universe is full of mysteries that challenge our current knowledge. In "Beyond Science" Epoch Times collects stories about these strange phenomena to stimulate the imagination and open up previously undreamed of possibilities. Are they true? You decide. NEWPORT BEACH, Calif.—Dr. Alan Ross Hugenot has spent decades contemplating the conundrums of physics, along with the enigma of human consciousness. Hugenot holds a doctorate of science in mechanical engineering, and has had a successful career in marine engineering, serving on committees that write the ship-building standards for the United States. He studied physics and mechanical engineering at the Oregon Institute of Technology. “I did things using Newtonian physics to create ships,” he said, “but the whole time, I knew better. There’s this whole other world that our five senses don’t register.” He gave a talk on the science of the afterlife at the International Association for Near-Death Studies (IANDS) 2014 Conference in Newport Beach, Calif., on Aug. 29. Exploring the scientific theories related to this other world, Hugenot has wondered whether the consciousness of living human beings as well as the “souls” of the dead reside in dark matter or dark energy. He has pondered the implications of the power our consciousness seems to have over physical reality. Hugenot told of a near-death experience in the 1970s during which he experienced part of this other world. He found it “more real than this place.” These matters aren’t only intellectual curiosities for Hugenot; they bear on a profound experience that has changed his worldview. Hugenot summarized some theories in physics, interpreting how they may point to the existence of a consciousness independent of the brain and to the existence of an afterlife on another plane. He noted that further investigation (reliant on further funding) would be needed to verify his postulates. He also noted challenges in trying to verify these ideas in a traditional scientific framework. Hugenot said the human consciousness may function like the data we store in the cloud. That data can be accessed from multiple devices—your smartphone, your tablet, your desktop computer. During a near-death experience, theorized Hugenot, the mind may be fleeing a dangerous situation. We can “flip the switch and go to the other computer,” he said. “The nexus of my consciousness is in my head, but the locus of my consciousness—where is it really? It’s outside my body. Because inside and outside is an illusion.” Space may not exist, or at least not in the way we commonly understand it, he said, citing Dr. John Bell’s non-locality theorem. “[It's a] hard one to get; we love our space,” he joked. Non-locality refers to the ability of two objects to instantaneously know about each other’s states, even if they’re separated by vast distances. It is related to the phenomenon of entanglement: particle A and particle B interact, and thereafter remain mysteriously bonded. When particle A undergoes a change, particle B undergoes the same change; A and B have, in many ways, lost their individuality and behave as a single entity. Bell’s theorem has been verified by many scientists over the years and is part of mainstream quantum physics. Hugenot’s ideas about the consciousness existing inside and outside of the human body at the same time build on this theorem, but remain outside the mainstream.

Is the Afterlife in Dark Matter, or Maybe in Another Dimension? What scientists have observed accounts for an estimated 4 percent of our universe. Dark energy and dark matter comprise the other 96 percent. Scientists don’t really know what dark energy and matter are, and their existence is only perceived because of the effects they appear to have on observable matter. Hugenot said: “This undiscerned 96 percent of the universe … gives us plenty of room for both consciousness and the afterlife to exist in.” Perhaps the consciousness exists in another dimension, Hugenot said. String Theory, much-discussed in mainstream physics, holds that other dimensions exist beyond the four-dimensional concept of the universe. String Theory views the universe as a world of very thin, vibrating strings. The strings are thought to project from a lower-dimensional cosmos, one that is simpler, flatter, and without gravity. Hugenot said that reaching another dimension could be a matter of belief. Maybe our bodies could pass through walls if we really believed they could. “My whole soul believes in 3-D, so I can’t go through the wall,” he said. He looked at some experiments that have shown the power human consciousness has to influence physical reality. Consciousness seems to have a physical impact on matter. The famed double-slit experiment (explained in simple terms in the video above) shocked physicists when it showed that photons (light particles) act differently when they are observed than when no one is watching. Essentially, the observer can cause the photons to take either the particle or the wave form by the very act of measuring; they aren’t fixed in one form as expected. Particles exist as potential, Hugenot said, and the observer determines what form they take. He noted that the influence of a researcher’s mind on his or her experiment has serious implications: “If a skeptic wants to replicate what a ‘believer’ found in their experiment, the skeptic can’t do it, because … [it's going to go] the way that guy wants to see it and not the way the other guy wants to see it.” Hugenot asked, if potential only takes form when observed, who or what was the observer of the Big Bang? His answer is, simply, “consciousness.”

Princeton Experiments Show the Mind Can Influence Electronic Devices Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab (PEAR) at Princeton University is famous for experiments it conducted showing our minds may actually affect the operations of electronic devices. Over many years, PEAR researchers conducted millions of experiments with hundreds of people. A typical example of such an experiment is as follows: A random event generator (REG) is an electronic device that can produce bits representing either 0 or 1. Study participants would try to influence the REG either way, toward 0 or toward 1. If the events showed a significant favor in the direction of the person’s will above what chance would dictate, it suggested the person’s will influenced the machine. The cumulative finding was that the human mind can slightly influence the machine. Though the influence was slight, the consistency was significant. Over the course of so many trials, the statistical power increased. The probability of these results happening by chance rather than by an influence of the human mind is less than 1 to 1 billion.

Okay this has been discussed many times, and I'll give out my answer I am really hoping I don't have to deal with it. Why am I saying this? Because who wants to live forever? It is especially bad if you have a huge affliction. On my part it is bad because I would have to deal with mood swings forever. However image if it were a person who had to suffer with cancer. Would you want to see them have to suffer through that forever? Not to mention you would probably lose a limb or 2 while living forever, and all your teeth while living immortally. If that isn't scary enough for you, how about the fact that you would do everything over and over again, and you would grow so insanely bored after a while, you would beg to go permanently unconscious after a while if you didn't go completely insane from total boredom. This is how I feel about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flFTg5tQN9s I would rather be permanently unconscious, and if science nor I cannot make that happen, I am going to climb on a rocket (if I have to sneak past 2 authorities to do it, I will), launch myself into space, and jump into a black hole to ensure I become permanently unconscious, because I don't want immortality.

I agree with nesgirl, although perhaps for different reasons. I've written a lot about this on the forum.

But indeed, quantum physics and dark matter seems to provide the most compelling explanation for the existence of the afterlife. This is only because it is impossible to disprove it, simply because we know so little about it. Nevertheless, I believe the afterlife to be an antiquated fantasy schemed up by people who didn't know much about neurology or biology.

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image

I sense a lot of speculation and a little pseudoscience in what you posted, Old Traveller. This is another God-of-the-gaps tactic. If we haven't yet explained it or don't know what it is, therein lie gods and ghosts.

Dark matter can be seen to exist because something is clearly preventing galaxies from flying apart. We know gravity just isn't enough to hold them together. Dark matter, however, and unlike ghosts, shows indications for its existence. The argument that pseudoscientists make does not explain consciousness and merely postulates that it is a thing that must exist in another "space" or dimension. Guess what? It can't be dark matter then for this one makes up this very universe.

Quantum mechanics do not produce consciousness either. A complex system of matter is clearly required for such phenomenon to exist. First, consciousness is strongly interrelated with memory and has its evolution. Second, for all we know, it is a strong illusion. Ah, the double-slit experiment: thoughts do NOT have any effect on the outcome and it is atrocious to say that they do. Observation is what makes all the difference! But observation in scientific experiments usually means "measurement." Electron detectors will inevitably interfere with the trajectory of quantum particles or affect their original state. Hence the Uncertainty Principle. Nothing mystical or supernatural about this...

It seems that people who postulate ghosts and spirit realms in this day and age are only trying to revive the obsolete Cartesian Theatre model of the mind. I only ask that they look more closely at what the world of neuroscience has been showing us...

Because of these so-called scientific types who have a trauma-induced hallucination and claim that is proof of an afterlife, we get a lot of confused laypeople. NDEs are not proof of anything but an active brain that tells porkies, distorts time, and concocts pseudo-realities. Any lucid dreamer should know this! It should also worry afterlife believers that only 20% of the population reports NDEs after life-threatening traumas while the rest say there was nothing or no memory...

Maybe it's the Rapture or something... :-D

[ Post made via Android ] Image

"I sense a lot of speculation and a little pseudoscience in what you posted, Old Traveller. This is another God-of-the-gaps tactic. If we haven't yet explained it or don't know what it is, therein lie gods and ghosts."

There is indeed a lot of that, still, it makes an interesting story. A lot of people will find it interesting, to say the least. :mrgreen:

Personally, I think it would be nice to get reincarnated with no memory of your past life. However, I don't think that's true. I think that consciousness dies with the brain, leaving you to a void of infinite unconsciousness. You'll never wake up, and never know you've been alive, forever. It kind of scares me a bit. I take solace in knowing that I existed whether I know it or not. :?

Thank you! LoL!

[ Post made via Android ] Image

The concept itself doesn't make sense to me. If there is life after "life", then your life never really ended in the first place.

I like the idea of an afterlife for two reasons I think.

1. I have been disenchanted with this life and what I have found in it.

2. The question and getting the answers to what happens next and until the end.

If Neil deGrasse Tyson can imply the lack of other intelligent life in the universe is a huge waste of space, then existence for a period that is basically nonexistent in cosmic history is a huge waste of..... time. ;)

So you're admitting to your own bias toward certain notions. Also, your, ah, reasoning may sound delightfully poetic, but it still doesn't serve as sound proof for the existence of an afterlife.

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image

HAGART wrote: I would classify that as online bullying and even on the verge of sexual harassment. I'm sure it wasn't on this forum. How do you even know if they were telling the truth or just a troll?

No it was in a Lucid Dream club I joined 10 years ago. He was a deviant, and had a huge addiction to those kind of things, and would take pictures of himself and show them to the ladies nearly all the time, and often he would make arrangements to meet with them later (like quagmire), because he was seriously popular with them and all the others. However when he got a good look at my appearance, he got way too horny over me, and wanted me to meet with him (I was only a teenager), and I told him NO! He did not take that very well, and he started getting very pushy with me. I told him to leave me alone. As in this club, most of the members had Lucid Dream mastery just like mine, some rivaled my ability, and the one who surpassed everyone was Icedawg, he finally used his Lucid Dream ability to rape me in my Lucid Dreams, telling me I would enjoy it, and everyone thought it was funny, and I got really angry at him not only for that, but I felt really embarrassed. He then said something about finding out where I lived, and changing my mind. This was not comfortable, I really hated him. I was mostly fine with the other members, except when that deviant was around harassing me. Although Icedawg had to ruin it for me, because I had probability Lucid Dreams which to Icedawg he said were blatant lies, he told me to either admit that to everyone there, or he'd ban me forever and make my life miserable. Of course I chose the later. Icedawg then later when I tried to join other clubs managed to get me banned from them. Icedawg rivaled me in just about everything. Icedawg has an IQ of about 160, has a Lucid Dream ability that is so incredible that even Lucidity Master would have been jealous (this guy started Lucid Dreaming at age 2 and had mastered it, and he has mastered every technique and form of dream control there is), has a huge Multimedia Design mastery that rivals my nieces and is a web designer, knows everything there is to know about video games and is really good at them, and he has a fiercely mean atheist personality like Deschain, and will not hesitate to let people who clearly deserve a good bullying and persecution clear to other websites know it. Icedawg is my nemesis who will stop at nothing to attempt to destroy me, and I am surprised he hasn't attempted to destroy my reputation on here.

See and this is one of the reasons, also because of what a couple of users said, why I don't feel comfortable posting my Lucid Dreams on here anymore. Also another reason is because my brother embarrassed me in front of the family, and now most of my family thinks I am lying when I talk about my Lucid Dreams. So I keep a Dream Journal online, however, I keep many of my Lucid Dreams private, for fear of being persecuted or ridiculed. And it didn't help one bit when I wanted to analyze one of them, and I was referred to as "delusional".

I think that's all they do, to be honest. Why have a thought about anything if there wasn't even a subliminal desire to have it?

That's probably true

As for Buddhism, Summerlander, I agree with their idea and Buddhism actually makes a lot of sense, but I don't see a need to shave my head, wear an orange jumpsuit and enter a prison full of men. If I wanted that I'd rob a bank! :P

There are places so much worse than that. Think if you are trapped in an experiment lab or in a hospital, that is far worse. Having tubes up your bottom, being fed through tubes, and being all wired. That is torture. Not to mention science could find numerous ways to make you be in a huge amount of pain, or die a slow painful death.

First of all, my joke about orange jumpsuits, and shaved head and being in a 'prison', was just a joke because there was enough similarity to make a clever comparison.

As for the 2nd, this is so far off-topic anyway.... So this "Dog of Ice" harassed you online about 10 years ago? Who's he?! So what if he claims to lucid dream, and who cares what his so called, 'skill-level' is. I bet he's a wimp in real life, and what's he going to do, fight me? How is he going to find me? In my dreams? Is he going to enter my dreams now, cause I'd whoop his ass! I already fought off some pretty bad SP 'monsters'. Forget about 'em!

I feel you need that pep talk and realize if anyone does that here, they won't last a week before getting banned.

You hold a grudge and lose trust for a long time don't you.

HAGART wrote: First of all, my joke about orange jumpsuits, and shaved head and being in a 'prison', was just a joke because there was enough similarity to make a clever comparison.

As for the 2nd, this is so far off-topic anyway.... So this "Dog of Ice" harassed you online about 10 years ago? Who's he?! So what if he claims to lucid dream, and who cares what his so called, 'skill-level' is. I bet he's a wimp in real life, and what's he going to do, fight me? How is he going to find me? In my dreams? Is he going to enter my dreams now, cause I'd whoop his ass! I already fought off some pretty bad SP 'monsters'. Forget about 'em!

I feel you need that pep talk and realize if anyone does that here, they won't last a week before getting banned.

You hold a grudge and lose trust for a long time don't you.

The deviant who harassed me and Icedawg were 2 different people. However Icedawg allowed him to harass me, laughing it up. Icedawg was the one in charge. Icedawg was just an evil guy who bullied me over my Lucid Dreams, claiming I was lying. And everyone believed him. And no Icedawg's skill level was official, as he did have facts to back him up, just like Deschain always does.

And darn right I have held a grudge against certain others. Icedawg is one of them. Ms. Lowe is another. Then of course that religion and the people in it who verbally abused me (I still create one of the families with the religious leader on the Sims and burn them, it has been a custom for me to do that since I got that game). And most of all, the creep who murdered my cousin.

We should probably PM or chat somewhere about the other stuff because it's going off-topic, but how can someone have credentials to prove their lucid dreaming ability? It's all anecdotal just like what I write.

How can anyone even be 'better' or 'worse' at lucid dreaming if it's just a mind state?

Are there Lucid Dream Trophies awarded that I haven't heard of? Is there a lucid dream Oscars where people get sappy and raise their award in the air, self congratulating themselves like they do in Hollywood? I doubt it.

If it does exist it's as fake as Hollywood.

HAGART wrote: How can anyone even be 'better' or 'worse' at lucid dreaming if it's just a mind state?

I take that back. There are different levels of awareness, but does it really matter? That's a whole new topic and can of worms.

HAGART wrote: We should probably PM or chat somewhere about the other stuff because it's going off-topic, but how can someone have credentials to prove their lucid dreaming? It's all anecdotal just like what I write?

How can anyone even be 'better' or 'worse' at lucid dreaming if it's just a mind state?

Are there Lucid Dream Trophies ever awarded that I haven't hear of?

Despite the fact I tried to prove my Lucid Dreams several times, I wasn't able to, and even though I was a few times able to confirmation bias a few probability Lucid Dreams in front of a couple of others, it is difficult for almost anyone to believe they actually happened with so few witnesses.

If you want me to keep on topic with the afterlife thread, I'd be more than glad to. Probability is no evidence for the afterlife. I know that Tania said that you can use cards to provide evidence for such, however, I was able to actually match a Pokémon card in a WILD back when I was a teenager, and personally I didn't then, nor do I now see that as any evidence for the afterlife, nor did my psychiatrist see that as evidence. She merely said that card matching was a form of probability, hence where I got my terminology for probability Lucid Dreaming from.

Summerlander wrote: The Buddhist's quest for nirvana is ultimately a selfish goal. They desire to get there and they meditate a lot with that goal in mind. Buddhism does not encourage you to embrace yourself. It implies that you are in a delusional state whereby you require salvation. It is, in a subtler way, just like all the other religions. It all persuades you to stop thinking and promotes the killing of personalities.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

First of all it's not a religion. It's a way of life.

Second They believe in no God (not all of them) and you can be atheist, Christian or what ever you like to practice the philosophy. You are talking like you have already practiced this, while I am sure you haven't. But, if you have, tell me because that makes it interesting. I'll have some questions for you.

I can criticise Islam without having practised it either. Islam, by the way, is also a way of life besides being a religion.

Saying Buddhism isn't a religion isn't quite accurate. Besides having precepts for propriety, it advocates the belief in Karma (not to be confused with -- and nothing like -- Newtonian cause-and-effect), a retributive supernatural force which judges wrongdoing. This to me sounds like a dehumanised invisible agent, a kind of unconventional god whose job is always the same: judge, jury, and executioner.

Perhaps Theravada Buddhism is the most down to earth and closest to the agnostic Buddha's doctrine. But the Buddha still erroneously believed in karma, and, like in all the stories about gods and messiahs, was born unconventionally (miraculously if you like). And what about lord Mara, lord of illusions in charge of samsara, whom the Buddha faced? There is also a story where Buddha encounters the god Brahma!

And what about Tibetan Buddhism with goodness knows how many deities and other planes of existence in the afterlife? Is this not a religion, Desert? :-)

I do admire the character of Buddha and even have Buddha ornaments in my house, but I have never truly practised Buddhism. I've been into meditation for sure and stumbled upon numinous experiences -- all, I believe, generated in my head -- but one does not need to be a Buddhist to practise it. I also see a lot of Westerners into meditation calling themselves Buddhist when they are not. Some have never even heard about the Eight-Fold Path (quite a totalitarian set of instructions purporting to be the right conduct).

Then there's reincarnation which supposedly provides you with a chance to pay your karmic debt if for some reason it doesn't happen in this life. Imagine the lack of compassion Buddhists had for victims of America's agent Orange! When humanists described deformed kids as "poor children" they were immediately told by Buddhists, "Don't say they are poor! They must have been bad in a past life..."

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Yes, I forgot to mention that there are a lot of Buddhism practices. The one that I was thinking about has people who do not believe in reincarnation. I will look for the exact name and talk to you back.

By all means, do so. Every religion is schismatic, a testament to their farcical and specious mien as so-called revelations.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjErByDfm7k&index=9&list=PLE0FEB1781BCF65EC

I found this one cartoon.

I insist that Buddhism is not a religion. Anyway, the only thing I found is that no Buddhist believes in reincarnation. Only those who practice Hinduism believe in the concept of the soul and immortality of it, while the others in rebirth, which they explain differently.

About what you said in the previous post; Of course it's all generated by your head, but that does not make it fake or true. Just a creation.

Well, I found my new religion. I'm going to become a Quir. It makes as much sense as all the others.

We make Quiris every 48 hours. Should we start talking to them since they know so much?

A morning constitutional can become a morning confessional.

Where's my link, Desert? :mrgreen:

[ Post made via Android ] Image

http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Differences_between_Rebirth_and_Reincarnation.html

I believe that they describe the difference pretty well here.

Thanks. But that only proves my point that Buddhism is a religion. It propounds different kinds of hereafter based on karmic debt. Rebirths in other realms beyond our own, eh? Supernatural experiences in hellish and heavenly planes of existence. The Nichiren doctrine, a branch of Mahayana Buddhism, claims to know -- without evidence -- that we are more than our physical bodies and this life is not the only one for most of us. You do know the meaning of religion, right?

[ Post made via Android ] Image

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKYz4KNpolw

This is really funny. And No Arceus.

Buddha never claimed to be a God or believe in any, neither a prophet or someone worth worshiping. Now, if so many others corrupted the teachings he provided which can turn a philosophy to a religion very easily, this is not his fault. If you can follow his way of life, I really think you won't go blind for sure. To pay attention and endorse whatever he believes about God is not necessary. It's personal anyway. When he's been asked about God, he didn't answer anything. So, it's the way to behave he taught that matters and nothing else. I think you know what I mean. Filtering what ever gets in a way of your logical mind does not mean you cannot follow. It's effective and smart. I like it. I feel agnostic in the subject of the after-life anyway and that is the good old "shield" to go in there and take what you want. You will gain something eventually, I guess.

It is certainly not Siddhartha Gautama's fault and I take your valid point. There is, indeed, literature arguing that the Buddha's philosophy was corrupted over millennia (this wouldn't surprise me) and that he didn't even require people to follow him as he asserted that people could find their own way on their own. He was a philosopher at heart, agnostic and curious about reality, a meditator, and, like any other human being, he was right about some things and wrong about others. He was, in my opinion, certainly wrong about karma. He had charisma and was a highly influential individual, which is why Buddhism spread and survived this long. It is certainly better than the monotheisms.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Alright.

What do you mean by "model citizens"?

By "model citizen," I mean those who set a good example, i.e. law-abiding and never give the rest of us cause for concern. But if you think this state of affairs is perpetual, you're mistaken. Brain trauma could potentially alter one's mental state and radically change the personality.

I'll tell you what is even stranger yet. The human mind can be literally divided with a knife. Have you heard of the peculiar effects of callosotomies -- the severing of commissures connecting both brain hemispheres (once used as a treatment for conditions like severe epilepsy)? Once a living brain is dissected via the corpus callosum, both hemispheres become independent centres of awareness. You get two minds in one body! Moreover, they often disagree with each other in opinion, beliefs, and control of the body.

It has even been reported that some split-brain patients possess one God-fearing religious hemisphere in contrast to a neighbouring atheistic one! According to some religions, one half of the brain should be going to heaven while the other one goes to hell... :mrgreen:

But jokes about afterlives aside, consciousness is a real mystery. Why should any complex system of matter become aware of itself and often, but not a requisite, the surrounding world?

I am currently reading Sam Harris's "Waking Up -- A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion," and after mentioning what the phenomenon of binocular rivalry entails in healthy brains, he points out something quite profound about consciousness.

Imagine that each of your eyes are visually stimulated in different ways. One is shown a house, and the other, a face. Intuitively, you would expect to see a blending of images -- or a superposition of both -- in consciousness. But this is not the case. Rather, you see the house for a few seconds, then the face, then back to the house, and so on...

Surprised at this switching at random intervals? The input remains constant, and yet, conscious and unconscious components of vision continuously change as they occur in the brain. While you are conscious of one image, you become unconscious of the other. But wait! I haven't mentioned the greater mystery yet...

The subjects experiencing binocular rivalry are CONSCIOUS throughout the experiment! This implies that consciousness runs deeper than just being aware of sensory stimuli. Now, if you were to take away all the senses, surely, a "naked" awareness would remain, wouldn't it? What do you think?

My turn to ask questions... ;-)

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Wow, that seems very interesting!

"The subjects experiencing binocular rivalry are CONSCIOUS throughout the experiment! This implies that consciousness runs deeper than just being aware of sensory stimuli."

Before I can answer, I'll have to know why does this imply that. How did you make this connection anyway? I really lost you there.

Even I'm racking my brains at that one. It seems that two different sets of visual data arrive in the brain but they are delivered one at a time interval (never simultaneously) to consciousness. And while we can say that when the individual is conscious of the house he is unconscious of the face and vice versa, we must acknowlege that consciousness is present throughout. At no point does the individual become unconscious.

Now, it could be argued -- against the implication that consciousness runs deeper -- that while we are aware of seeing the house (in its prominent appearance in consciousness), we also see the face. But because the house perhaps had more of an impact on the neurons, we forget that we saw the face, too. Subsequently, as the brain is aware that there is another stimulus to take into consideration, it removes the house (as it had enough conscious exposure) and introduces the face into visual awareness. Indeed memory and consciousness interrelate. Now, this is just a hypothetical explanation. I don't know why the binocular rivalry should be. Perhaps the brain hemispheres wrestle even when they are attached to each other as one prefers the face while the other prefers the house.

This is redolent of something else. Split-brain patients can draw two different things at the same time with ease: the left hand can draw a dog while the right draws a person. People with their brains intact, like you and me, will find this exercise next to impossible as one hand will tend to copy the other.

And then we arrive at lucid dreaming. Someone here once posed the question of whether or not dream characters are conscious. After all the talk about callosotomies and binocular rivalries, such proposition doesn't seem so far-fetched. Perhaps they represent the intelligent and conscious right hemisphere while the dreamer is mostly representative of the left hemisphere. Who knows! Split-brain individuals, funnily enough, report having only mundane dreams where oneiric environments differ very little from the real world. It seems these poor people are deprived of the more surreal settings which tend to provide escapist adventures.

In our ordinary dreams, the dreamer lacks control and lucidity while DC's seem as alive as ever and appear to know the dream setting well. But the dreamer quickly seems to rob them of their apparent elan vitale when lucidity is attained. Perhaps Waggoner wasn't far-off from the truth when he said that there is a kind of intelligence behind the dream. Some may want to argue that the right hemisphere does not deal in language and therefore isn't conscious. But I would dispute that by saying that experimenters are able to communicate with the right just as well as the left. The right hemisphere can recognise the shapes of written words and may use this to answer questions. It also exhibits more consciousness than an infant. Anyway, this paragraph really belongs in the Dream Characters section.

More to the point of this discussion, I don't believe in the afterlife (especially not the religious hereafter scenarios). Neuroscientific evidence strongly suggests that at death you've had it. But we must remember that consciousness is still a mystery. Just because I don't believe -- and just because evidence is strongly indicative of zero experience once the brain dies -- doesn't mean there is nothing. The debate hasn't really been settled as the scientific side that struggles to even define consciousness hasn't really provided us with something absolutely conclusive. Perhaps part of the conundrum is the fact that consciousness is trying to study consciousness. Could this be an impasse? I don't know.

When you open the brain and have a look, there is nothing to suggest that it's a locus of experience. Tomorrow, I could be surprised to find that consciousness is something independent of the brain. This, of course, would not necessarily confirm the existence of ghosts, miracles, gods, and eternal life.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

OK. I can certainly imagine that conciousness may runs deeper than we can see. But, you are right. We would not be able to see it. We probably need a mirror for that. ;)

I personally don't believe that consciousness is normally independent from the brain, but I can believe in the possibility that it can be.

And that is as open-minded as we can afford to be on the idea. Here is an interesting quote from Sam Harris:

"The fact that the universe is illuminated where you stand -- that your thoughts and moods and sensations have a qualitative character in this moment -- is a mystery, exceeded only by the mystery that there should be something rather than nothing in the first place. Although science may ultimately show us how to truly maximise human well-being, it may still fail to dispel the fundamental mystery of our being itself. That doesn't leave much scope for conventional religious beliefs, but it does offer a deep foundation for a contemplative life. Many truths about ourselves will be discovered in consciousness directly or not discovered at all."

And then there is the riddle of the self which philosopher Derek Parfit once emphasised in the following thought experiment:

Imagine a teleportation device that can beam people from Earth to Mars. All you need to do is go inside a chamber, press a green button, and presto you're there (or so you've heard). Before you go in the chamber for the first time, technicians tell you that all the information in your brain and body will be sent to a similar station on Mars, where you will be reassembled down to the last atom. Several of your friends have already done it and they message you from Mars, telling you that they're fine and describe the experience as being one of instantaneous relocation: "Don't worry! You push the green button and find yourself standing on Mars -- where your most recent memory is of pushing the button on Earth and wondering if anything would happen!"

So you decide to teleport to Mars. However, as you make arrangements with the technicians, you come across a troubling fact about the mechanics of teleportation: It turns out that the technicians wait for a person's replica to be built on Mars before obliterating his original body on Earth. The benefit of this is that it leaves nothing to chance; if the process of replication goes wrong, no harm has been done. However, the troubling factor is quite clear:

While your double begins his day on Mars with all your memories, prejudices and goals intact, you will be standing in the teleportation chamber on Earth, just staring at the green button. Imagine a voice on the intercom congratulating you for arriving safely at your destination and that in a few moments your Earth body will be destroyed. How is this different from getting killed?

And yet, consider that the same arrangement of atoms that begets your sense of self and identity would be walking on Mars and believing himself to be you. You may think that the replica is nothing but a deluded perfect clone, but then consider the fact that all your cells have been replaced many times during your lifetime. You may remember having been six-years-old but the truth is that that little boy is long gone and the new cells have merely inherited memories. This gives rise to the illusion of a continued self. We must also consider the fact that individuals with extreme dementia are not psychologically continuous with whom they used to be -- and yet, they hold the same neurons that gradually succumb to the disease. In their case, a new set of neurons compatible with continued consciousness could restore their once healthy psyche...

What is the self then? What does it rely on? Could it be that, in Parfit's thought experiment, we die on Earth but suddenly find ourselves conscious on Mars? Or do we die and the replica on Mars is nothing but a replicated self but with a fundamental difference of location in the fabric of space?

According to Buddha, the sense of self is an illusion -- not what we feel it to be -- and hence why we can temporarily turn off the observer-observed dichotomy through meditation. The naked awareness is bliss because bliss may be an intrinsic tone to consciousness -- and hence why a convoluted mind illuminated by consciousness will tend to experience the distractions of desire. I think he was right. Furthermore, if we assume, according to compelling scientific evidence, that consciousness ceases at death, we come to understand that our struggles are truly over when that time comes.

And in a sense, when we realise that living beings are like heroin addicts searching for happiness and trying to make it last, life suddenly seems like a problem that arose from the complexity of matter. Unconscious matter does not experience and therefore does not suffer. Like the stone, and, according to everything neuroscience tells us, the corpse.

Experience leads to suffering because sentient beings will always tend to crave for the best mental states. Meditation? A tool to help make the awareness of our gradual loss more bearable as well as a "window" allowing us to glimpse the truth of our condition.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

I never got into meditation seriously. In fact I don't think I ever will, but never say never they say.

I enjoyed that little story. Is it from a book or what?

It's adumbrated in "Waking Up" by the neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris but Derek Parfit is the one who excogitated the thought experiment.

[ Post made via Android ] Image