Researchers say there's evidence that consciousness continues after clinical death

I'm not opposed to that direction.

I will say that I don't really see evidence of a notable advance in consciousness over the period of human existence.

There has been advancement in our understanding of brain function. There are now models for how our senses present us information - visual, auditory, etc. There are models for how we do emotion. We have an understanding of the brain hardware used in language. We have equipment that shows how dreaming uses the same circuitry as we use when awake. Etc.

But while there is a lot we don't know, so far there isn't evidence of some missing component that can't in theory be supplied by our physical brains. That is, there is no actual evidence that our brains aren't "enough" for the mental tasks we are capable of performing - those we have evidence of happening while awake, asleep, comotose, dead, or in between.

 

I've often wondered if 'the afterlife' is in fact a dream. I know I've had some pretty long-seeming dreams before that really only lasted a few minutes, like when I spend what seems like hours in a dream and then wake up to find I had just nodded off breifly in class... Couple that with the evidence that we only use a small percentage of our full brainpower and the documented release of massive amounts of DMT (psychodelic) during death, it seems possible to me that 'the afterlife' may just be one last epic hallucination of the dying brain, that perhaps could seem like an eternity.

On the other hand, theres a lot of intriguing speculation regarding the purpose and function of the pineal gland, or the 'third eye', everything from an electromagnetic transciever to a psychic projecter to a biological quantum interface mechanism that links our physical body our 'other self' that exists in a paralel state in a different reality. No good way to test any of it, of course, just very interesting.

Personally I believe that a human is more than the sum of its parts, and that 'more' is some sort of energy state that we havn't scientifically measured yet.

 

That something cannot be tested now doesn't mean it cannot be tested in the future.

I do not believe in having or holding a belief if it conflicts with science.

My belief in the eternal soul cannot yet be proven by science, but there is nothing in science that disproves it, either.

Until then, I will hold that belief. But, i do not believe in 'God' ( as intelligent designer ) as, to me, it's not logical.

 

I don't expect heir would be any evidence. It is amazing all the stuff we are discovering about the human brain though. Science is a beautiful thing!

 

My beliefs fall pretty closely to the "law of one". There is tons of material about it on the web if you are interested. It talks about what you are bringing up quite a bit.

 

I'm the same way. My own spiritual beliefs are enhanced by science and vice versa. they don't contradict eachother.

 

imho, the most exciting message of science is how much we don't know.

Without the unanswered questions, science would be too boring to live.

Instead, look at the opportunity!!

 

absolutely. I love learning about all the new stuff that science uncovers, from exploring the universe to exploring the tiniest particles we know of, it's all endlessly fascinating.

 

I believe in reincarnation. We started out as one celled creatures some 4 billion years ago, and worked our way up the food chain untill we finally reached the human level.

We're merely in the front of the line to achieve 'enlightenment' , though it might take more lives, coming back, to achieve it. Once having achieved 'enlightenment' there is no longer a need to reincarnate, at that point, a physical body is not needed, you exist as spirit, forever.

the body and mind is like a cocoon for the soul, which when the caterpillar of the soul is ready to sprout it's wings, it drops the body, and the need for more bodies, and is free from that point on.

Lesser life forms are just further back in line, are newer souls, so to speak. They, eventually, will also reach the human level, and they will have their chance to reach enlightenment. Viewed in this way, life is fair. All souls, lower animals, will have a chance, and all humans, will experience all shade of life, one life you will be fortunate, another you will be unfortunate, one life you will be a man, another, a woman, and, in this way, life is actaully very fair, it's jsut that we can't see the forest from the trees of our physical bodies.

Anyway, that's my belief, and for me, it's the only thing that makes sense.

This idea that out of 14 billion years of the universe's existence, we are not even a tiny blip on the radar of life, we come and we are gone, this makes no sense.

 

What you are saying is that you ascribe to your religion those things where science hasn't provided an answer. That's a horrible approach. It's "God of the gaps".

The rest of your post is pure religion, and you can hold to that if you want, obviously. But, I would strongly suggest that there will NEVER be a time that science can test your religious beliefs.

The problem comes at the point of what testing means. "Souls" don't have some way of being tested by science.

 

Given nature's fondness of recycling, I see no reason that our consciousnesses wouldn't be recycled as well. Nothing can be created nor destroyed, but merely altered. If there is a spirit, and I think there is, the same rule would logically apply.

 

I know. It's hard to see ourselves as so monumentally insignificant.

But, bacteria are alive. And, we fully recognize their individual irrelevance.

Surely this question is one of the scourges of consciousness.

We awoke to who we are.

And, we're not thrilled by the answer!

(So, we immediately started concocting ideas to make ourselves of permanent value - an infinite god who cares, everlasting life, a plan for this entire universe that features each of us, etc.)

 

You can say we are insignificant but that doesn't seem entirely true. It is not a matter of physical size or even some imagined ranking in the universe. How do you feel? How do you feel in danger, insignificant?

 

I don't believe that's the point.

Every human alive has known that they will be dead and that NOBODY is going to remember that they even existed.

So, they built pyramids and invented gods of myriad descriptions.

The same is true today. There are even people today who think technology will save the memory of them - surely a false hope that can not possibly apply to more than in infinitesimal fraction.

We are humans. We will be gone.

Surely the advent of consciousness brought that to humans in full impact.

 

i have no religion. But, you are calling my spiritual beliefs as a religion, okay.

No, my beliefs are derived from my senses.

 

If matter cannot be destroyed, how can spirit be destroyed?

Either you believe you are a soul, or you don't.

I don't believe that the soul is eternal as wishful thinking.

I believe it as the logical consequence of being a soul, that if matter cannot be destroyed ( only transformed ) then the same must be true for spirit.

 

I am just saying to keep an open mind. Not having experienced death I can't say for sure what happens. But the evidence seems to point to the fact we will be gone but I am not sure. Karma, if true, would seem to be the same as Newton's law of action/reaction. Buddism believes we become part of a universal conciousness. And it is natural for most living beings to call for a greater power when under stress and I have done it myself. So I don't know. But I am older now and know much less than I used too.

 

Oh, I consider myself a soul. But is it an immortal soul? Or am I destroyed with death? Is there a purpose or not? I just don't know.

 

You are describing your process as being fundamentally religious. It is one of preferring untestable answers based in spirituality rather than accepting the answer of "I don't know".

I do stronbly believe that we need to recognize the divide.

After all, science may be able to point out that other answers are possible, but only you can decide if you want to consider answers outside of your personal spiritual answers.

 

IF you are a soul
IF matter cannot be destroyed
If you are natural
IF matter is natural,
Then how is it possible you can be destroyed, if you are a soul and natural?

If matter is transformed when it decays, then it is logical that you are transformed when you die.

What the precise manifestation of that transformation is, that is the question.

I say it's reincarnation for most, enlightenment for some, and enlightenment for everyone, eventually.

 

If you askef me, what caused the universe?

There is only one honest answer, "I don't know".

If you asked me, Am I a soul?

I would answer yes.

Why?

Because I sense it.

NOT because I want to believe it.

 

That is essentially Buddist. I have this problem with the brain and I know that's where my "soul" is located. I tend to think the mind manufacturers the self. I don't think self survives death. I tend to think the "soul" is no more. Life on one side of the coin and death on the other. But I do like the Buddist philosophy.

 

I don't believe I've said anything to indicate that my mind isn't open.

If you or Da Silva want to believe in karma or whatever, I don't oppose that.

I like your last sentence a lot!

There IS a line between these ideas and science, however. And, I do insist that we recognize that line. It's just a fact that "soul" and "karma" are outside of science.

In the case of understanding exactly how consciousness is implemented, your "I don't know" is a reasonable description of where we are. And, there isn't any evidence that our brains aren't sufficient. If someone wants to claim they know, fine. But, I would say that is outside of science AND closed minded. The open minded answer is "I don't know".

 

Apologies for the wrong choice of words. I also feel that this universe is so large and so awesome and so seemingly timeless it's just wasted and nature doesn't waste.

 

Yes. Your methodology is what you "sense". If you "sense" something, you believe it - at least in the examples you give.

The fact that one of your answers coincided with an answer from science doesn't mean your answer has anything to do with science. It's not about the answer. It's about how one explores this universe - the method used for choosing what to accept.