The Afterlife... (And a little bit about human nature, too)

[LimpingFish]

Gandalf was high.

If the conciousness, or remnants of it, continue to "exist" after the body and mind has ceased to function, how does it cope with the sudden severing of ties to the physical form?

How does it percieve its journey to the afterlife? Is it still a unique identity when it reaches its goal? Will it inhabit a form that mimics the one it left behind? If so, from where in the previous life's timeline will it take that form from? If a baby dies, does it spend eternity in the afterlife as a baby?

In the afterlife, what outfit will I be wearing? Do my clothes ever get dirty? Can I fall in love in the afterlife? If the physical form has been left behind, won't those feelings we experienced in life be moot? Can I smell stuff in the afterlife?

Will I be able to see my house from the Afterlife?

[LGM]

Liken the afterlife to the Matrix, and all your questions will be answered.

[m0ds]

There wasn't anything before life and there isnt anything after.

I have difficulty beleiving that. Firstly what is "nothing" ? "Nothing" itself is still something. Before I was alive I was still "something" yet at the same time I was nothing. Just because we cannot relate to what we were before birth or may be after death - doesn't mean [to me] that there isn't "anything". Hehehe, it's a complicated but fun discussion



And, I did write a lot here in reply to LimpingFish, but I really need to think it through more... I'm waiting for the discussion of drugs to arise, because they've really helped me understand what a "moment" is, what my head is capable of perceiving and how there is this "beyondness" that really can't be reached in every day life. You know how really there's two sides to everything? How every possiblity really only has a 50% chance - either YES or NO? Despite facts maybe saying 73% of people will and 27% won't, when it breaks down to an induvidual, i.e. ME, it either WILL or it WONT, thus making it a straight 50/50 split chance. Yah? Also, why the fuck are we symetrical? Why is just about everything on earth symetrical? What's that all about? Perhaps something to do with these "two" sides? Maybe not, but for the purpose of this paragraph, again let's say 'yah' Everything is about one, or the other. "One" is always the part that happens to us, the choice we end up taking, the path we end up walking. What is "the other"? Yes, it's the part we never touched and now we never can. We still know "the other" exists, could have existed and probably still will exist - though just not to us as induviduals because we took the "one" route. Therefore, surely the whole of our lives is "one", and therefore death is "the other". By doing drugs, somehow, unexplainably, you get introduced into "the other". Even if it isn't real, and is the Matrix and is in your head - it's still almost as if you're being treated to the things you shouldn't have been concerned with in the first place. That, in my opinion, either puts death as a crossing to "the other", or simply allows us to sit directly in the "middle" and understand fully the direction of "one" and the direction of "the other". Okay, that doesn't prove if you'll phyiscally exist or not after death, but I think there's a high chance. The universe is pretty fucking big. We're pretty fucking tiny. But there's a whole unstoppable universe inside our heads, in fact we can almost create a universe inside our heads. On our planet we've been blessed with intelligence (to a degree ) and I think that is the first step in conquering death. We don't know what it is but as far as I'm aware we're the only species to question it. Well obviously, unless there's a bunch of Llama's posting their thoughts on the afterlife in this thread?

So, erm..what was I saying? Ah yeah.. Existing phyiscally beyond death. Firstly, what existed before the big bang? Who knows. Secondly, what exists beyond what the universe hasn't yet expanded into? Who knows. But we're a bit like a universe. We "big bang", we "expand", we "wilt" and die. A bit like flowers. A bit like stars. A bit like....well everything natural I assume... It's a very similar process from the tiniest thing to exist to the hugest universesized thing to exist.

I'll finish off by concluding that, as I said, before I was born I was nothing yet still "something". If my birth was effectively a "big bang", that must mean before the Universes big bang, there was "something" in existence despite it seeming like "nothing". As we live, and as the Universe expands, we discover new shit, develop new tastes for foreign food etc.

Okay, as for the death part, I need to think a little further again before I write about it. I'm quite happy to be seen as a crackpot on these matters because I don't represent any religious beleifs, only weird ones, ones as far fetched as Groundhog Day But for everyone who just things "nothing" happens, like Becky - that you reach an eternal blackness that you won't even recognise yourselves, I offer this song lyric - which I think is inspirational!

"I want something good to die for...to make it beautiful to live"Ã, 

Yes, partners count. No, terrorism does not!

Anyway, just ranting randomly I stop now.

[lo_res_man]

The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all turns to silver glass... And then you see it... White shores... and beyond, a far green country under a swift sunrise."

I always thought that was the most hair prickling beautiful things I ever read. Ã, And when Ian MacLennin said it, Man, shiver me timbers, it felt almost mystical. And no I wasn't high.
Unless I am naturally high.
Maybe only some people experience an afterlife because only they can withstand the shock of utterly total sensory deprivation. And maybe…who knows, this is all speculation, but hey, THAT is what makes us human.

[biothlebop]

But I don't think someone has to eventually have faith or faith-like views the more and more one gets into the unknown.

One just has to stop and say "I don't know yet." and that's hard to do sometimes and yet it should be the easiest thing ever. "I don't know" usually means to some people "I haven't thought about it" when it could very well be "I have given a lot of thought to it, weighed all the evidence and there is too little evidence for me to make a proper conclusion at this time, so I don't know yet.". In my opinion at least.

Here is somewhat what I was aiming towards (might be that I misinterpreted again due to obscure words so sorry if this goes off a far tangent):
Driftwood theory (don't know what this is called in english -> didn't wiki -> shitty explanation):
---
Assume that choices exist, the clock is ticking and time is moving forward along a line.
A person is in a situation with x possible outcomes and lacks sufficient information to predict the outcome of any action to 100%.
In case he/she takes no action, factors unrelated to his/her actions might resolve the situation (the time-opportunity-window might close) or eliminate all other options until one possible action remains and force him/her to choose it (kind of a path of least resistance thing).
---
Depending if you view taking no action and saying "I don't know yet." as making a choice, you might still be making some kind of conclusion and acting upon it.

The way I see it, there are so many factors constantly at work in the universe that if I'd just say "I don't know yet.", I'd maybe never get a second chance or my life would take the path of a log in a stream.
I have made several choices with lacking evidence, mostly because I have found that the passive "log in a stream" approach leads usually to erosion.
In order to make more choices and be less passive/pushed around, I have chosen to believe in the following:

- My actions can make a difference
- Everything is not predetermined

This still requires some faith (free will), hard determinism seems like a more logical construction, but could make me more passive.

[Sam.]

A scientificish way of loking at this.

Before we were human beings, we were sperm and eggs and after we are human beings, we get broken down by bacteria and grow into something else, like grass, then we get eaten, possibly by a cow, and the cow uses us to grow new cells, maybe she uses thosecells to make milk, maybe a human drinks the milk, and the benefits from that milk help to make new sperm or eggs, and then another human being. That is how I see the circle of life or whatever.

What I mean by nothing before or after, i mean for our consciousness. That is just electronic impulses in our heads giving us thoughts and feelings. Once we die, these impulses stop, and our existence as a sentient being stops. I guess what I'm saying in a convoluted way, is that I don't belive in the soul, or at least a soul that can carry on without our body.

I hope tha made sense to someone.

[lo_res_man]

One of my favourite discworld concepts is the "auditors of reality" The idea of the world working by nice orderly deterministic laws, and WE are the things that don't, just makes me grin, thump my chest, and say "I am ALIVE!" For a brief time, some of the dust the cosmos, coalesced into something that can move and think (whatever THAT is) and love. and after that we crumble back to dust. But for that brief moment the was MORE then matter and energy. Ã, 

[LimpingFish]

I'll finish off by concluding that, as I said, before I was born I was nothing yet still "something".

I not sure if I'm reading this right, but are you saying that before you were born or before you were concieved?

For the purposes of argument ( ) I'll will direct my point to the latter.

I believe, that before the union of sperm and egg, you where indeed nothing. You weren't a soul looking for a host, or a divine light waiting in a queue, ticket in hand, for the next available vessel. Therefore, in my mind, the concept of a immortal soul is flawed, since it based around the assumption that after we die we return to God.

The whole concept of the Afterlife is simply mankind's way to cope with the horrors of Life, by reassuring themselves that something better waits beyond.

Otherwise, what's the point?

[Helm]

An interesting scientific fact is that, theoretically, you can use next to no energy to create information, but to forget HAS to take energy.(i could be wrong, read that in a hard sci-fi book, as well a book on quibits and information theory) So...who knows, it may mean nothing.

That sounds quite wrong actually. As for Gandalf.... okay.

[lo_res_man]

To quote some long dead dude, " 'Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.' "What I find flawed about the 'soul' concept, is that people explain human conciseness, an almost irreducibly complex concept, with something Ã, simpleas a vapor Ã, or a liquid. or ectoplasmic goo. an infinitly branching tree would be more likely.

[Nikolas]

The whole concept of the Afterlife is simply mankind's way to cope with the horrors of Life, by reassuring themselves that something better waits beyond.

Or maybe... the way of "someone" to makes us follow them blindly. The idea of punishment is also very strong in the after life!

[Andail]

The nazis have been mentioned, and still the thread can carry on undisturbed!
This community is progressing!

[Andail]

An interesting scientific fact is that, theoretically, you can use next to no energy to create information, but to forget HAS to take energy.(i could be wrong, read that in a hard sci-fi book, as well a book on quibits and information theory) So...who knows, it may mean nothing.

That sounds quite wrong actually. As for Gandalf.... okay.

Well in an information theory point of view, it's sort of a correct way to think. What consumes energy is not to take in information, it's to get rid of the disinformation.

[lo_res_man]

There is a poem that always sent shivers up my spine,
It describes the human condition in a way that makes you feel almost like an outsider.
ahem*

Imagine

Ã, 

Imagine ghosts, gods and devils.

Imagine hells and heavens, cities floating in the sky and cities sunken in the sea.

Unicorns and centaurs. Witches, warlocks, jinns and banshees.

Angels and harpies. Charms and incantations. Elementals, familiars, demons.

Easy to imagine, all of those things: mankind has been imagining them for thousands of years.

Imagine spaceships and the future.

Easy to imagine: the future is really coming and there'll be spaceships in it.

Is there then anything that's hard to imagine?

Of course there is.

Imagine a piece of matter and yourself inside it, yourself aware, thinking and therefore knowing you exist, able to move that piece of matter that you are in, to make it sleep or wake, make love or walk uphill.

Imagine a universe - infinite or not, as you wish to picture it - with a billion, billion, billion suns in it.

Imagine a blob of mud whirling madly around one of those suns.

Imagine yourself standing on that blob of mud, whirling with it, whirling through time and space to an unknown destination.

Imagine!

****

That is what we are, and if there is nothing after, well I am sorry, but what we do have and what we know, is infinitely special. unlike 99.999....% percent of matter in the universe, we are ALIVE! And even more special, we are AWARE! We can look at the stars and ask, we can look at the Earth and ask...and we can look at ourselves, AND ASK! Though I would love an afterlife, but if there isn't I hope I go peacefully into the final night.

[Nostradamus]

To make this clear my previous comment were not a personal attack on Sektor 13 and whether he or anyone should or should not have faith.
I was just generally saying that people are trying to complicate and find explanations for stuff that really aren't complicated but very simple and need no explanation, yet religions twist them for its purposes. I was just using Sektor 13's name as an example of one who was trying to complicate simple stuff in life.

[evenwolf]

Children, as of today, pretty much need to believe in an afterlife.    To get by.   To answer the usual questions about existence.  There aren't enough seculars out there to combat the whopper of fundamentalists who throw all kinds of twisted, ALL TOO specific and badly referenced mythology.

I grew up in the South thinking I might drop into Satan's Hell at any second.   I lived by those rules, doing everything with God's watchful eye on me.   Then one day the burden was lifted!   I evolved from a single cell to multiple cells to a fish-like-blob to a newt to a tiny rodent to a primate...... etc. etc.! 

As a kid I COULD have grasped this concept but no one ever sat down and fleshed it out for me.   I knew every character's name in Mario, and the back stories of the Ninja Turtles...    but every secular person in my life was so self conscious or quiet that I never heard one peep besides this "theory" about evolution.    The Bible Belt is churning out people like me every day... and most of those folk don't go to college.   Drop out of high school.   Never question.    They just attend church and love Jesus, and for them that's like..... having called and made a reservation at a fancy floating restaurant in the sky.

And all there is to salvation, for some, is to accept Jesus.   To accept an image of a guy with a beard and toga.   Well my question is.... what does a Martian have to accept in order to go to Heaven?   A Jesus with bearded antennae and a silver jumpsuit?

Long live the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[lo_res_man]

I personely, when i  thought about that question, was the 'narnia' method that is, god came for them, in form that they would recognise, in the form of that speices. Of course, I am so likely wrong it doesn't bear thinking of.

[LimpingFish]

what does a Martian have to accept in order to go to Heaven?   A Jesus with bearded antennae and a silver jumpsuit?

No, Martians don't exist. God made man in his own image, Himdammit! The Earth is the center of the universe! Outer Space is just some scrubland behind our house!

Dogs won't get into Heaven either, because the little bastards don't have a soul! Not even that really helpful dog who gave you his umbrella when it was raining! F*ck him! Let him find his own messiah!

...


Normal service will resume in 5...4...3...2...

I personely, when i  thought about that question, was the 'narnia' method that is, god came for them, in form that they would recognise, in the form of that speices. Of course, I am so likely wrong it doesn't bear thinking of.

Wasn't that also the Ghostbusters method?

[evenwolf]

'narnia' method that is, god came for them, in form that they would recognise, in the form of that speices.

There's a reference to a Martian Jesus in the "Chronicles of Narnia"?   

Yes, so other planets have other prophets, other sons of God?   Well then.. if that is true and we can live in Harmony with these other civilizations that accept Martian Jesus and Martian God...  then why is it we cannot accept Jewish Jesus and Jewish God..... or Mohammad Jesus and Islam God.... or Buddhist Jesus and Buddhist God... or Muslim Jesus and Muslim God....or Ron L. Hubbard Jesus... or Egyptian Jesus and Greek God (my favorites, sad they're not trendy anymore)

Why would God's purpose be to set us all against each other, and not connect all the dots.   Why do missionaries even bother harassing natives over semantics and the name of the invisible monster in the sky?

Why do people keep planting "authentic" evidence that some higher being exists?  I argue that it's for the children.  You know, for kids!  I should know.  I was one.

[Helm]

An interesting scientific fact is that, theoretically, you can use next to no energy to create information, but to forget HAS to take energy.(i could be wrong, read that in a hard sci-fi book, as well a book on quibits and information theory) So...who knows, it may mean nothing.

That sounds quite wrong actually. As for Gandalf.... okay.

Well in an information theory point of view, it's sort of a correct way to think. What consumes energy is not to take in information, it's to get rid of the disinformation.

The thing I quoted is wrong on many levels... First of all, scientific theories concerning the "creation of information?" What? Are we taking data assimilation here, what? Second, nothing the human mechanism does takes 'no energy', and to the point, the process of frogetting most probably is a passive byproduct of the memory mechanism, therefore taking less energy to put waste out than to burn info in. Oh well.