Jump to content

The Afterlife


spiritseeker

Recommended Posts

Ada,

 

Thanks so much for sharing and keeping it to the topic being discussed. Your view was most interesting and complete to read and i personally see nothing that deserves "attacking". Thanks again for sharing and your civil participation in this thread and in this community.

 

Love in Christ,

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ada, many of your ideas are similar to my own. Did you ever see the movie Groundhog Day? Bill Murray is an egocentric, insensitive guy who keeps living that same day over and over until he finally gets it right. Then he is able to move on.

 

Another possibility: Arthur C. Clarke (of 2001 fame) wrote a book called Childhood's End. In it he describes the next stage of human evolution as a race that can communicate telepathicly to the point that they eventually lose their individual physical selves into what he calls the "overmind." I don't relate to this exactly as he describes it, but it got me thinking that eternity is, putting it mildly, a very long time, and I think if we were confronted with it in the next life it would fill us with dispair. So perhaps to survive, we will combine our thoughts with everyone else's in some way, and in doing so see ourselves from the standpoint of those whose lives we affected. So we would have to live with the knowledge of how those we wronged felt.

 

Just some thoughts.

Edited by grampawombat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ada,

The post reminded me of the movie comedy, "Defending Your Life." Also, somewhat, of CS Lewis's "The Great Divorce," although in that book, the person does not get reborn, they just have infinite opportuties to move from separation from God to closeness with God, even after they die.

 

The other good book I read on the subject was M.Scott Peck's "In Heaven As on Earth.", where the issues are figured out not in another life, but in a green room. Some things about that book I did not like, but I liked the idea of this life preparing us for the after life.

 

Thanks for posting your thoughts!

 

Jaent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ada,

Nice post. Very open to the tensions involved in free will.

Confessing the existance of your own internal contradictions is inherent to an honest effort in evaluating the existent circumstances. It will undoubtedly yield good results searching for Truth.

 

God's grace to you,

 

Davidk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

"Religion may talk of life that goes on after physicality, and it's a nice notion, but it goes against what we currently know of how consciousness forms and is maintained. As far as we know, once the brain is gone, so is the person."

 

We (scientists, neuro-scientists...) simply have no idea how consciousness is formed. In the words of Professor Richard Dawkins when replying to a question about the subject in which he would most like to see advancement: "...Consciousness, which I think is immensely difficult, and I think it's difficult to even formulate the question, and I don't know what the answer is."

 

If we do not know how it is even formed we simply cannot allow ourselves the freedom to say that it is an emergent feature of the brain. Personally speaking I have very strong theoretical reasons for postulating that it is NOT derived from features of the material brain, but is in fact something completely separate and is only 'fed' by data neurons etc. This theoretical reasoning is then backed up by other strong objective evidence (frm rigorous scientific tests) which allows for only one of two possibilities: that individual consciousness survives death, or that some universal cosmic record (of people's lives) is somewhere/somehow maintained and can under certain circumstances be accessed. I know which one I think is more likely!

 

Seebee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Religion may talk of life that goes on after physicality, and it's a nice notion, but it goes against what we currently know of how consciousness forms and is maintained. As far as we know, once the brain is gone, so is the person."

 

We (scientists, neuro-scientists...) simply have no idea how consciousness is formed. In the words of Professor Richard Dawkins when replying to a question about the subject in which he would most like to see advancement: "...Consciousness, which I think is immensely difficult, and I think it's difficult to even formulate the question, and I don't know what the answer is."

 

If we do not know how it is even formed we simply cannot allow ourselves the freedom to say that it is an emergent feature of the brain. Personally speaking I have very strong theoretical reasons for postulating that it is NOT derived from features of the material brain, but is in fact something completely separate and is only 'fed' by data neurons etc. This theoretical reasoning is then backed up by other strong objective evidence (frm rigorous scientific tests) which allows for only one of two possibilities: that individual consciousness survives death, or that some universal cosmic record (of people's lives) is somewhere/somehow maintained and can under certain circumstances be accessed. I know which one I think is more likely!

 

Seebee

 

Carl,

I think my opening post of Immortal Souls fits in nicely here so I have cut and pasted it below.

 

In Bishop Spong's essay on The Study of Life, Part 6 - Rethinking Basic Christian Concepts in the Light of Charles Darwin, he says in his closing paragraphs:

 

"So I had to begin my quest for life after death by going into the depths of the mystery of life itself. Just as we now know that life evolved out of lifeless matter, that consciousness emerged out of life and finally that self-conscious life has emerged out of mere consciousness, so perhaps the day is now arriving when we will experience the possibility of entering a universal consciousness that is beginning to emerge out of self-consciousness. We are thus part of the oneness of life, bound together by a common DNA and that oneness makes us part of God. It also suggests that we are linked to eternity since God is found at the depth of the human."

 

Teilhard de Chardin was a brilliant Jesuit thinker of the past century. (The following is quoted from Wikipedia)

 

"Teilhard studied what he called the rise of spirit, or evolution of consciousness, in the universe. He believed it to be observable and verifiable in a simple law he called the Law of Complexity/Consciousness. This law simply states that there is an inherent compulsion in matter to arrange itself in more complex groupings, exhibiting higher levels of consciousness. The more complex the matter, the more conscious it is. Teilhard proposed that this is a better way to describe the evolution of life on earth, rather than Herbert Spencer's "survival of the fittest." The universe, he argued, strives towards higher consciousness, and does so by arranging itself into more complex structures.

 

However, Teilhard here proposed another level of consciousness, to which human beings belong, because of their cognitive ability; i.e. their ability to 'think', and to set things to purpose. Human beings, Teilhard argued, represent the layer of consciousness which has "folded back in upon itself", and has become self-conscious. Julian Huxley, Teilhard's scientific colleague, described it like this: "evolution is nothing but matter become conscious of itself." In Teilhard's own words: "...a Universe in process of psychic concentration is identical with a Universe that is acquiring a personality."

 

Life continues evolving toward the ultimate perfection of consciousness, a universal super consciousness. I think the universe is a living evolving organism and universal super consciousness is the ultimate measure of evolution.

 

Super universal consciousness is beyond self consciousness; it is other consciousness that is not only consciousness of self but of other's consciousness. It is pure empathy, the ability to experience and understand another's thoughts and emotions; to "get into their heads" so to speak.

 

In order for us to be self consciousness we need a functioning brain and a brain needs energy, oxygen supplied by our blood. When our heart stops pumping our brain dies and our self consciousness can no longer be supported by it.

 

If I am to think that I have a soul it is necessary that I understand how my soul is supported by my living body. I reasoned that my soul, mind, emotions, self consciousness and ego are all somehow a part of my mortal warm body. When my body goes dead and cold none of these are left within it. They either die with it or go on. I deduce that because my mind, emotions, self consciousness and ego die with my brain that my soul must be independent of them or it would also die with my body.

 

If my soul is independent of my body and my senses how can it possibly go somewhere like heaven or hell where it will continue on in eternity in suffering or bliss and why should I care?

 

What would be the purpose of a soul that is independent of a body?

 

What is the human spirit; is it the soul?

 

Is humanity a single organism with many physically separated parts that shares a common spirit, consciousness or soul?

 

If I have a soul and if it is a part of my consciousness and must be supported by a living brain how does my soul go on after my brain dies if that soul is unique to me and I no longer have consciousness?

 

The answer I've come up with is by no means complete. It comes from reading about paranormal psychic studies of near death experiences, out of body experiences, psychokinetic activity, remote viewing and reincarnation.

 

I'm thinking now that perhaps, through particle entanglement and natural the law unique souls of individuals are all part of a common universal soul of self conscious humanity.

 

Unique souls of the deceased may draw their energy from a universal consciousness field supported by the emotional conscious energy of living humans. In effect these souls timeshare brain power. Our brains are active even during sleep and our brain's activity produces energy that can be measured by EEG. Are our dreams somehow part of a consciousness energy field? Are the people and events we experience in our dreams fragments of experiences of conscious souls sensed by our brains through particle entanglement while we aren't using them?

 

These are just some thoughts and questions.

Edited by Harry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carl,

 

I am anxious to hear more of your ideas on consciousness. I too have strong sense that all consciousness does not reside in our skull but the higher levels of consciousness are outside of us and that our brain is somehow our link to universal consciousness and life force itself. I think the brain is like a transmitter/receiver that communicates with outside energy and other dimensions and that it can be tuned or aligned like the IF section of a super hetrodyne receiver

 

I have a great interest in PSI because I have a step daughter who is a psychic. I've gone to lengths to convince myself that psychics are frauds but the more I study the phenomena the deeper I'm drawn to understand otherwise. The institute of Noetic Sciences is a place I discovered while doing research on PSI. If you are aware of other sites like this that deal with consciousness that you found valuable please share them with us.

 

Yesterday Stauch was kind enough to share his near death experience with us in a post on Kathy's 911 conspiracy topic. Not only did he have a NDE but he also told us of his prior reincarnations. I take Stauch very seriously because I have an intuitive feeling that he is more in touch with the life force or universal consciousness field than most.

 

I have a strong feeling that scientists are on the verge of discovery that will be a consciousness paradigm shift for humanity and it will be good. I don't know if the ending of the Aztek calander on 12/21/2012 has anything to do with it or not but we shall see.

 

Traveling back to Earth, having just walked on the moon, Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell had an experience for which nothing in his life had prepared him. As he approached the planet we know as home, he was filled with an inner conviction as certain as any mathematical equation he'd ever solved. He knew that the beautiful blue world to which he was returning is part of a living system, harmonious and whole—and that we all participate, as he expressed it later, "in a universe of consciousness."

 

Trained as an engineer and scientist, Captain Mitchell was most comfortable in the world of rationality and physical precision. Yet the understanding that came to him as he journeyed back from space felt just as trustworthy—it represented another way of knowing.

 

This experience radically altered his worldview: Despite science's superb technological achievements, he realized that we had barely begun to probe the deepest mystery of the universe—the fact of consciousness itself. He became convinced that the uncharted territory of the human mind was the next frontier to explore, and that it contained possibilities we had hardly begun to imagine. Within two years of his expedition, Edgar Mitchell founded the Institute of Noetic Sciences in 1973.

 

Today, Dr. Mitchell serves on the board of directors of the institute. He continues to be active at institute events, including lectures and conferences. He is the author of The Way of the Explorer.

 

 

Edited by Harry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a strong feeling that scientists are on the verge of discovery that will be a consciousness paradigm shift for humanity and it will be good. I don't know if the ending of the Aztek calander on 12/21/2012 has anything to do with it or not but we shall see.

 

As far as I'm concerned I know it now! But the rest of humanity, we'll see...

Anyway, Teilhard was on the wrong lines. Dawkins is on the wrong lines, Deepak Chopra is on the wrong lines, everybody that thinks consciousness is either emergent (from brain functionality, or intelligence) or is somehow part of the fabric of the universe cannot be right. I would send you a link which would logically prove this point, but I'm going to keep you on tenterhooks for just a little longer.

 

I have a picture of 'reality' (which the whole of humanity will have at some point in the future) which is radically different from the one we see at the moment. It incorporates a vision of quantum physics put forward by an eminent ex-professor of physics. But it unfortunately needs you to understand all of it before I can progress to consciousness. Should I dive in there first (as I have tried before) I fear you will end up thinking something like "Ah well, it sounds nice but..." and then give up. I (and you) have to be sure that you grasp and feel the fundamental physics bit first. Should you be unable to do this then we will both know that further work is not going to be fruitful.

 

Now I know that this sounds a bit like a cop-out. I know it sounds like I'm saying "If you can't grasp one of the most difficult areas of science, then I can't tell you any more". I do know how it sounds, but I have no alternative, I'm afraid. I have tried before and just reached a point of disappointment when the other party says "No, it's just too difficult for me to take in".

 

What I have to explain actually makes quantum mechanics far easier to understand than it is currently, but it takes someone with an intuitive feel for physics to take it in.

 

In synopsis I can say that I know that the feature of consciousness is separate from intelligence. It is also unique to the individual; it is like (or is) the individual's soul. It is something which is separate from the material body and as such it is theoretically possible for it to survive death. Note where I use the word "theory" and where I don't. When I say "is" I am talking of logic only, not even theory, just a verbal or mathematical description.

 

I have sent you a course description (to your private email). If you are still interested we will eventually get to the bit about consciousness. If you can wait (~3 months) I will eventually have a blog on the whole subject of the emergent physics and its implications for where mankind sees itself in relation to the Higher Source.

 

It's all such a big change from what we (via science) are used to, that it will take a long time for it to be accepted by the scientific community, let alone permeate into popular culture. But it will. How do I know? Intuition, along with the backing of the sayings of Einstein, who was never able to give us the equations during his lifetime, but which are now there and show him to have been right to stick to his guns all along.

 

Phew, a longer post than I thought.

 

Love and peace

Carl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service