Eternal oblivion

[Mark Tetzner]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_oblivion

I think Mark Twain said: Before I was born I did not live for millions and billions of years and never had the slightest inconvenience".

In any event, long live Lucretius. (Last quote on the wiki-page).

[David Gabriel]

That true eternal oblivion entails no suffering is precisely why you should not believe in it.

There is something that suggests it is not akin to dreamless sleep. Almost no one is afraid to go to sleep but almost everyone is afraid to die. There are people who claim not to be afraid to die but they look before crossing the road. They cannot be taken seriously. The only people not afraid to die are those who commit suicide without flinching or regretting the decision. Buddhist monks that do that in protest are an example.

The body is naturally afraid to die and seems to know what death is. It's a natural reaction to instinctively and reflexively jump out of the way of danger. Why would the body be at ease with sleep, even dreamless sleep, but reflexively avoid death where possible? They cannot be the same thing. Atheists have to convince themselves that death is akin to dreamless sleep. Many of them have to keep affirming that to themselves. For some of them 90% of their dialogue is about atheism and by inference eternal oblivion. But their body doesn't agree, which is why it naturally fears death.

If you're wondering whether the body can know something, it can. If you ingest protein, it uses it to repair muscle. Similarly, the immune system recognises pathogens that enter the body and responds appropriately. The body can know things in its own way. It seems to know the difference between sleep and death because it doesn't fear one but does fear the other.

I am of the opinion that we should trust the body. It says that sleep is ok but death is not. But when there is absolutely no hope of survival, as in the case of drowning, it's well reported that in the final moments, the body lets go and you experience a feeling of acceptance before you go unconscious. This tells me that the body fears death but if it is unavoidable, it does not continue to try to hold on. This tells me death must be bad but that it is not the end of the world. The body does not respond as though it is the end of the world, when it is unavoidable. A sensation of letting go is experienced in that instance.

Bernardo has the right idea to assume some form of conscious existence continues and to be afraid of it. He is embracing the unknown. The atheist materialist who believes in eternal oblivion is brainwashing himself to equate death with dreamless sleep and to be certain of something that is not certain. They are not embracing the unknown because they are systematically convincing themselves that they do know. They do not know.

[Mark Tetzner]

I do not really jive with this one. B never said to be afraid of death or not, if anything he said not to be afraid of it. You say that because we are afraid of death this means the body knows death is not okay and stuff like that. And last but not least you say this stuff about drowning that the body thinks its okay to die IF it can't be avoided and stuff. Also drowning is an extremely panicky way of dying. It goes hand in hand with thrashing around because typically you are in a situation you are trying to free yourself and then at some point you black out.

Last but not least, you do get that there is no person alive who does not "loook" when passing the street, as we all do it. To make a statement that someone who does look but claims he is not afraid of what happens after death ...is kind of a liar because of that...sounds confused to me.

[Mark Tetzner]

The materialist atheist does not brainwash himself to beliefe death equates dreamless sleep and certainly not systematically. Its either what makes sense to him or what he is thought.

[David Gabriel]

Bernardo freely admits that he is somewhat afraid of death. He also acknowledges that he would be less afraid of it if it definitely entailed true eternal oblivion and if we could know that for sure beforehand.

If you study drowning literature you will find that it is common knowledge that people have a feeling of relief from the struggle and a letting go in the instant before they go unconscious. Do some research before you claim I am wrong.

It is speculated that the body initiates this feeling of relief and letting go once it knows there is absolutely no hope of survival. Once again, do some research.

The example of looking before crossing the street is one of many similar examples I could give. If someone avoids death then it is probably because they fear it. This applies to looking before crossing the road and it applies to not going out into a war zone amongst many other things. Research into fighter pilots has repeatedly shown that many of them did not believe they were going to die. Sometimes it was because they thought they were blessed and other times it was because they thought they had a magic helmet, etc.

These pilots did not need to not fear death because they did not think it was going to happen to them. A kamikaze pilot on the other hand is another matter. A kamikaze pilot is a likely candidate for someone who does not fear death and he ultimately proves it. But even he may regret his decision in the final moments. We can't know for sure.

Atheist materialists do in fact brainwash themselves in various ways. Often systematically. I have studied the subject. We all talk to ourselves in our head and come up with rationalizations for what we're doing etc. Many of us also lie to ourselves about certain things in various ways in order to control the way we feel.

If you think atheist materialists do not brainwash themselves systematically, I invite you to read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It has been read by millions of people. You read that book from cover to cover and then have a debate with me about whether or not atheist materialists brainwash themselves. Unless you're willing to investigate this subject, you will not realize the truth about them.

Bernardo's books are his wads of paper explaining why what he believes is likely true and Richard Dawkins' books are his wads of paper explaining why what he believes is likely true. Their respective wads of paper are at odds but are nonetheless convincing when read from a neutral position.

[Mark Tetzner]

David, regardless of what the body or psyche feels just before we die when it comes for example to acceptance, what
is this proving in your opinion? Can you quote some drowning-literature for me?

[Mark Tetzner]

http://www.ranker.com/list/what-does-it-feel-like-to-drown/katherine-ripley

[Mark Tetzner]

Here is my hypothesis:

It is completely unnatural not to fear oblivion. Nobody wants to die, and the moments before being administered an anesthetic before a surgery
can be completely frightening. I know this from my own experience. This is in spite of the fact that you know that you will feel nothing. It is
a feeling of being afraid of loss of control.

Also most people believing in life after death are accused of wishful thinking.

One of the best ways to make oneself or others believe that this is not so is to claim one wished there was oblivion but unfortunately one
suspects there isnt.

I think it is possible to come to terms with death of course. One can rationalize that oblivion is no biggie because it probably isnt.

But to emotionally really being "on par" all the time is a different story.

[Mark Tetzner]

Here is something else I dont understand.

You are saying that the body is not afraid of sleep but of death. So sleep must be okay but death must not be okay.

But the body of any animal does not normally entertain methaphysical thoughts all day long. It must fear death or danger,
for obvious reasons. This is not to say that according to some peoples beliefs after you die against what you wanted or
wish for you end up in a pleasent place/state or whatever the case may be. If alters did not fear death evolution and life
would soon come to a stand-still.

[David Gabriel]

Right now I'm a bit busy but at some point, if I remember to, I will do some google searches to find some drowning literature that explains the feeling of acceptance right in the final moment. But do bear in mind you will be able to find this information by yourself if you do a bit of searching on google.

I read some of the article you linked and it focuses on the torturous aspect of drowning. Drowning is one of the most unpleasant ways to die and that's the focus of the article. I don't deny that the drowning process up until the final moment is absolutely horrible. I have had laryngospasms myself due to illness and have experienced something very similar to drowning due to that, about 100 times approx.

I was in an accident that appeared certain to be fatal and in the exact moment before I knew it was going to happen, I experienced the feeling of acceptance and letting go, fully expecting to enter into whatever death is. However I was fortunate and didn't die. Got injured somewhat, but didn't die. Nothing permanent either, in terms of the injury.

I completely agree that it is unnatural not to fear oblivion. The natural state, without any intervention, including self intervention, is to fear oblivion. However you must give humans credit where it is due. They can be very creative and the mind likes to sink its teeth into problems. If you are convinced of oblivion, for whatever reason, it isn't a long shot that you might get the funny idea in your head of convincing yourself it is a good thing and better than the alternatives.

If you decide to convince yourself that oblivion is great, then you will become emotionally invested in the idea. Any alternative you will not be prepared for and so in conjunction with convincing yourself it is great, you will also have to convince yourself that it is definitely true. People like Bernardo become a threat to you in that situation, because they can explain why it might not be true.

I have had conversations with atheist materialists where I have shaken their belief in oblivion to the core and they have had visible emotional reactions. If I had to describe the reactions I'd describe them as reactions of horror. This may come as a surprise but it should not. They are braced for oblivion. They are not braced for anything else and are therefore not prepared for anything else. Eternity is scary if you understand it; it is infinity. If you want proof of what I say, I can give it to you:

In this video of Richard Dawkins and Mat Dillahunty, Richard Dawkins explains that eternity is frightening but it's ok because it will not be lived through, due to eternal oblivion or as he describes it, being under a general anaesthetic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNCzd6_ce0I

I don't remember at what point during the conversation he says it, but he does say it. If you watch all of it, you will hear him say it. This will prove my point to you beyond any doubt that the most famous atheist materialist in the UK actually wants oblivion. I have told many people this fact and they don't believe me. But the video of him saying it is there for all to see on YouTube. 

I personally know someone who wants permanent oblivion to be true but does not believe it is true.

I have discussed the purpose of death at length in other posts on here. Almost all video games have death in them. Sonic the Hedgehog dies when he falls off the screen etc. A lot of things just don't work without death built into them. A game of chess dies when one of the kings is checkmated. After that another game will be played, either by the same players or by other players.

If we didn't fear and avoid death, life would not work; just like Sonic the Hedgehog would not work; and like a game of chess would not work.

Yes the body is not afraid of sleep but it is afraid of death; therefore sleep must be ok but death must not be ok. Crucially, they cannot be the same thing, according to that observation. Convincing ourselves that death is equal with sleep is false because the body reacts differently to those things. The body can know things. It has intelligence in it. If we convince ourselves that death is equal with sleep then we are convincing ourselves of a lie.

The body does not need to consciously entertain metaphysical thoughts all day long. The avoidance of death is a metaphysical reaction, rather than a metaphysical thought. Awareness of death is implicit in that reaction but perhaps not at the level of thought; especially not in a squirrel.

I can overcome my fear of death. I have no doubt about that. But I suspect it's a recurring problem; in which case I will find myself experiencing a body again and with another death looming over me. In that situation I might not have knowledge of metaphysics and psychology; I will have to experience a terror.

Let me illustrate this with an example you will be able to relate to here and now. If I have a nightmare and during the nightmare I don't know it isn't real and I am about to die in some horrific way, I will be terrified up until the moment I wake up and know that it wasn't real. Once I wake up and know that it wasn't real, I am still not safe from having another similar nightmare at a future date. Waking up from a nightmare to realize it was not real does not protect you from having another one where you repeat the whole process all over again.

If true eternal oblivion is true then anyone who overcomes their fear of death will never have to overcome it again. How they overcome it doesn't really matter as long as they don't hurt anyone. Cases in point: born again Christians, Jehovah's witnesses, scientologists, etc. But where this completely fails is if we continue to exist in different life scenarios. Basically if we have restarts of this game or some other similar game. In that case then our overcoming our fear of death in this particular game is only a small win as far as eternity is concerned.

If I am going to be something similar to a roman gladiator that has to fight something similar to a lion, and with no memory of this life or of metaphysics and psychology, then the repeating nightmares example I gave above is an accurate depiction of eternal life.

Eternal life should be compared with dreams and nightmares. I had a dream the other night where I was in the company of some famous woman from a television show that I quite like. That was definitely not a nightmare. But towards the end of it, she turned into someone else who I did not like. That was a dream turning into a nightmare. Some lives are dreams or heavens, and some lives are nightmares or hells. Life is like the real version of a dream or a nightmare. It's barely any different from a dream or a nightmare. The main difference is it is more vivid and more consistent.

If we're talking honesty and being realistic, then expecting to have good times and bad times is being completely fair. Expecting only good times is not being realistic or fair. Expecting only bad times is brave but doesn't make sense because most of us have had some good times, so we know they're possible. Wishing for other people to go to hell simply shows how much we dislike them; it doesn't show any metaphysical insight.

And by the way, on that note, one atheist materialist I know says he cannot stand the thought of certain people not ceasing to exist. He says he would be prepared to cease to exist as long as it meant everyone he doesn't like also ceases to exist. That's like a metaphysical kamikaze style thought. Quite awful of him but at least his true cards are out on the table.

[Mark Tetzner]

Thanks for another essay :)

Quick question to all, inspired by one of Davids paragraphs here:

If you were to suffer through every horrible accident that any human or animal ever had, every cancer, every rape, every mutilation, torture and so on....every moment of death any organism has ever lived through was yours...

And at the same time were guaranteed in return every orgasm any organism ever had (quadrillion billions of them) every birth to a child, every feeling of rapture when looking at the starts, every good meal and every beer, every situation of company with others and so on........(in no particular order you can put the orgasms last if you wish..)

Or alternatively to having both: "Be silent forever".

Which one would you chose?

[Ben Iscatus]

For me, I think it would be the silence. I love silence (isn't the Void supposed to be an experience of peaceful and silent bliss?) However, it's academic. 

One point I would ask of David is this: how can you be sure that what we fear is death, rather than pain and loss of function (as in crossing the road, being hit by a truck)? I ask this because of those who are in pain and terminally ill who request the right to die. 

[David Gabriel]

I believe if we were to experience everything bad that can be experienced and everything good that can be experienced, it would balance out. To be silent forever is probably the logical option. But I once had the experience of meeting a God during a dream and I got the impression he understood suffering and had been through a lot of it. He had an aura of teleology about him. If teleology (purpose) is weaved into the negative and positive experiences in some way, then I would choose to have them over silence.

And Ben,

We fear both death and injury. Some people fear injury more than death, yes. I wouldn't disagree with that. Many people would rather die than become paralysed like Stephen Hawking. But there's no doubt that most people fear death as well as just injury.

[Larry Schultz]

The difference between eternal oblivion and eternal fullness (unboundedness) is a little intellectual understanding - same experience - (and similarly a new food given to you by your Mother tastes better than a new food from a rank stranger) - - - if Camus (and the existentialists) had studied non dualism their story would have been different.

[tjssailor]

From my study of the NDE literature drowning does not seem like a bad way to go.  Sometimes consciousness seamlessly transitions from state to another without actually realizing that the body is drowning.  It doesn't matter what an outsider sees as far as far as the body thrashing around, to TWE all is well.  You are trying to free yourself and then there is  Light.

[tjssailor]

Once again looking at the NDE literature almost no one wants to return to this life after experiencing what comes afterwords, no matter how good their life is here.  Love is what is emphasized.   If you focus on Love in this particular dream you will primed to experience Love in the next.  You create what you are.  If you are focused on fear and terror then you will create that until you decide you don't want it anymore.  In the end you are the creator whether you know it or not and will experience what you create.

[tjssailor]

Aren't you contradicting yourself here?  First you say things wouldn't work with out death then you say they wouldn't work without avoiding death then you say death must not be ok even though it's necessary for things to work.

It's not the body that fears death since the body is obviously always dying anyway. Your 10 year old body is dead and no where to be found.  Your body has been entirely replaced several times by now.   Although it's difficult as usual to speak precisely on this subject from my own personal experience it's the ego identity that fears oblivion.  When you believe yourself to be an ego identity totally separated from everything else somehow thrown into the universe as an accident then the fear of oblivion can be extreme.  The only cure can be knowledge.  Now that I know I am the Consciousness that exists everywhere and is creating everything oblivion is an impossible absurdity.

The reason we don't just step out into traffic has nothing to do with preserving a body which cannot be preserved.  It has to do with keeping the game going as long as it's worth playing.

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 9:53:42 AM UTC-4, David Gabriel wrote:

[David Gabriel]

No I am not contradicting myself. You took some of what I said out of context. 

1. There are some things that wouldn't work without death.

2. There are some things that wouldn't work without avoiding death.

3. Death must not be ok in some sense, due to the fact it is instinctive to avoid it up to a point. It isn't 100% avoided; hence why I say up to a point.

There are probably many reasons why we don't step out in front of traffic. One of them is because we want to continue playing this particular game. But wanting to do that implies that we don't want to do the opposite of that, which is to die. We can imply something by enacting its opposite. We don't have to directly reference something in order to be referencing it.

Oblivion might be an impossible absurdity but not believing in it is not the same as not fearing it. You cannot fear it or not fear it if you don't believe it exists. In order to not fear it, you have to believe in it as a possibility and then somehow not fear it; I'm sure there are many ways to make yourself not fear it. I'm also sure some people just don't fear it as a default and while believing in it.

[Mark Tetzner]

I find it peculiar that I can not really find an answer to my own question.

David if you think it balances out then this observation might be true for most people, it means you would prefer you had never lived?

I think that if this idea would give me eternal life, and that in every horrible moment (billions of them) and every blissful one (billions of them)
I was aware of this scenario that I am living through trillions of life because, say, someone told me this secret.....I would go through the bad times with a "this too shall pass" attitude and opt for the yes-to-life option instead of eternal nothingness.
Not sure why this makes a difference, it just does.

Oh...maybe because that would make me TWEE - that which experiences everything.

[Dana Lomas]

TWE in some eternal state of oblivion just seems about as oxymoronic as it gets. :)

[Mark Tetzner]

Nooooo thats not what i meant.

[Dana Lomas]

I must confess I'm not sure what you're trying to understand. There is only ever TWE experiencing all that is, ever has been, ever will be ... Get over it!! :))

[David Gabriel]

I understood you. I can see English is not your first language, but I understand everything you say.

I don't know if I would prefer to never have lived. I have explained on this forum that the only true oblivion is to never have existed in the first place. The oblivion where you have existed once is not a true infinite oblivion because prior to it, you did exist for a while.

Those who want oblivion need to ask themselves whether they would have preferred the true oblivion of never having existed at all in the first place.

I stand by what I said before. If teleology is built into the negative and positive experiences, then I want them. I'm very fond of teleology. (Purpose.)

[Ben Iscatus]

On Friday, 16 June 2017 07:46:39 UTC+1, Ben Iscatus wrote:

So how do you interpret the purpose, David? Presumably, it's something positive :)

[Dana Lomas]

Imagine being doomed to an existence of preferring the impossible ... That surely would be unbearable. The experiencing of being an ego-bound entity seems doomed not to last, so perhaps best to prefer That which is experiencing it.

[David Gabriel]

OK this subject is no walk in the park; the subject of teleology, which is the study of purpose in its strictest definition; but people often use it just to denote the possibility of purpose. They might say something like, 'I'm open to there being some sort of teleology,' when talking about the universe, for example.

The best example I can give to someone brand new to the matter as a serious subject is the example of the chair. I will give a thorough breakdown and analysis of the example:

Many atheist materialists hate the word spiritual. Whenever they hear someone use it, they get a little angry inside. I have observed this phenomenon many times, but one day, one of them finally explained why the word spiritual makes him angry. He said, 'I don't know what it means. When someone uses it, I don't know what they're saying. If you use this word – spiritual – what do you even mean?'

The word spiritual can mean many things but to keep it as simple as possible, let's suppose it means – meaningful.

So when someone says they are spiritual, we assume they mean they are meaningful. There's nothing wrong with that. If they say they think the universe is spiritual, we assume they mean the universe is meaningful. There's nothing wrong with that, either.

Now let's bring in the chair. Standing requires more effort than sitting. If you've been standing up for a while and you have become a bit tired by it, a chair becomes purposeful to you. The chair's teleology is to do with the fact standing is tiring and that it can offer some relief by being used to sit on. In this way, a chair is meaningful, and therefore it is spiritual.

Now the atheist materialist will come in with the following rebuttal: 'If we didn't get tired from doing anything, we wouldn't need a chair or a bed, or anything like that. If the world were intelligently created, we would not experience tiredness; which feels unpleasant and is therefore a form of suffering. The chair's purpose is to relieve suffering. There is nothing spiritual about that.'

The point of the atheist materialist is that suffering implies either no God or a bad God. Neither of these two things would be good but what he may not have realized is that in the case of a bad god, that would still be spiritual. A bad god can still be a meaningful god. After all, he is not an evil God, which would be a different thing and much worse.

If we were to not be tired by anything at all, the world would be less real because it would not involve cause and effect linkages. A world where we magically do not get tired by anything would be a world without explanation for even the simplest of things. The world we are in already has unexplained things but at the very least it does have some explained things; which boosts its meaning. A world with no explanations for anything in it at all would be a less meaningful world; it may even be a meaningless world.

Importantly, the tiredness a healthy person experiences from standing up for too long is not entirely unpleasant and the relief from it upon sitting is quite pleasant to most people. The atheist materialist has two ways out of this. I've already described the first way, which is to claim the world should be free of feelings of tiredness and therefore in no need of tools such as chairs and beds. The second way out of this would be to say the tiredness experienced by a healthy person is acceptable but there are other forms of suffering that are intolerable and therefore not acceptable.

The atheist in this case would be arguing that if the world only had minor and acceptable suffering in it, it would be pleasurable and self-evidently an intelligently created world.

As I explained in a previous post, I had a dream where I encountered a God. This God in all likelihood was not an actual God but a character dreamed up by my mind, however it communicated that it had experienced a lot of suffering and was infused with teleology. We can understand mild suffering and its antidotes in the forms of chairs, beds, vitamin C, etc., and perhaps the more severe forms of suffering can be understood by a higher being.

I already know a concept that addresses this issue and I will put it on the table. The problems of the human body that we have understood and found solutions to, have given us insight into the human body. A body with no problems due to simply not having any, is a body we cannot have insight into. That's in a sense a less real body. Less real = less meaningful. A body that has no problems because of work that has been successfully done on it, is a more real and more meaningful body. A god who is in possession of such a body will know why his body is the way it is. He will understand there were many bodies before it that suffered. Information was accumulated as a result and eventually problems were consciously overcome through knowledge and its application.

We know what a world with no ultimately real suffering or problems in it is, it's called a cartoon. The Simpsons never age. Nothing too bad ever happens to them. Perhaps it would be better to be the Simpsons but it would be less real and therefore less meaningful. 

Everything might have a purpose in some way or might be able to be made to have a purpose at a later date. I can think about bad things that have happened to me and draw lessons from them and by doing that I am making them have a purpose.

So ultimately, if we are to experience many negative things and many positive things, if there is teleology as part of it, then I accept. What I've explained above, is how I interpret the purpose.

On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 7:46:39 AM UTC+1, Ben Iscatus wrote:

So how do you interpret the purpose, David? Presumably, it's something good :)

[Ben Iscatus]

Thanks for those insights, David, which I found very interesting. A further question that occurs to me as a result of what you've said:

 

If a god has great insight because of the experience (suffering) s/he's had, do you believe that *all*  beings eventually attain enlightenment or godhead? If not (and personally, I would doubt it), there's a kind of evolution/ survival of the fittest going on, which means many (most?) characters don't cut the mustard, and are recycled via TWE, or maybe bits of them are reused in a kind of modular evolution ["upcycled" - aaagh!]

 

If that's the case, then the lost souls must be considered as the losers in the spiritual evolution game...or maybe it's just a question of at what level of enlightenment a separate being is reabsorbed into TWE (how big and complex the whirlpool is).  

[David Gabriel]

I'm not optimistic about our individual prospects. That's another way of saying no, I don't think we each make it to become one of these gods. Our pure awareness might and I actually think probably does. The individual characters we have been, many of which will have been mediocre, are possibly for the most part discarded, or worse, erased. 

Bernardo has a thing he calls, 'the law of insight.' It states that all insights are stored somewhere, even if not by the original alters that had the insights. I'm open to some variation of this being true. If it is true and if existence gives a damn about a previous insight and its incarnation, then it can obtain clarity by running a reboot of some sort to obtain additional and related insight.

My life might be self-contained. I have very meaningful insights come to me but if my life is self-contained then they are not coming from lessons had previous to this life. If self-containment is true then each life has what it is meant to have already built into it and it will not influence subsequent lives.

One consolation prize might be that there is a direction to the grain, figuratively speaking. I have noticed that there is a certain way of doing something right and it does not rely upon you inventing it. It already is the right way of doing it and you have to figure it out. A good example is shoelace tying. The quickest way of tying a shoelace is to make one bow and then wind the other lace around it and thread it through. Most people do it this way. There's a slower way where you make two bows and tie them together. It could be that there is a best way of doing most things and it already exists. When you figure out what it is, you've aligned yourself with a sort of cosmic order that in fact wants you to do exactly that.

In that case, you are not having insights but are instead learning the pre-existing bedrock truth. If that is the way it is then it will be built into the self-contained lives and you will find yourself having the right insight and being rewarded or you will find yourself having the wrong insight and being punished. You are allowed to get it wrong because the correct way is so right that it's best understood the hard way if need be. After all, if it truly is the correct way, then it should be immune to all attempts at proving otherwise. And it should be allowed that people can attempt to prove otherwise.

On the subject of gods the result of evolution, I have made an observation. When the typical man sees a beautiful woman, what he perceives as beauty is usually signs of health, strength, a good immune system, and intelligence. He usually is not attracted to an elderly woman. The elderly woman not only might not be able to give birth to a healthy child, she might not even be able to give birth at all, if too old. Beauty in a woman from the point of view of a man is what he experiences perceived reproductive viability as. Now if most men did not have this habit of for the most part trying to reproduce with for the most part reproductively viable women, we would have more unhealthy and less intelligent offspring. This would not work out well in the long term.

Naturalistic gods the result of thousands of years of evolution as described above will come about partly as a result of people trying their best and trying to mate with the best people they can. Obviously there are plenty of examples of this not being the case but an element of survival of the fittest has played somewhat of a role up until this point and so it has some relevance. A beautiful woman is often called or likened to a goddess. I suspect this might be because in the very long term, her and those like her, eventually give rise to an actual goddess in the distant future. So when a man in ancient times sees a desired woman and thinks she is like a goddess, he is in some sense linking to the future when there actually will be a goddess that is the result of however many people it takes to get there, which includes women with good immune systems etc., which as I've said, are experienced as beautiful.

One way insight might be carried forward has been put forward by Professor Eric Steinhart. He uses the example of a boat. A father might figure out how to make a boat. He may then teach his son how to make that same boat. That son might figure out how to improve the boat, and then teach his son how to make the improved version of the boat. If this continues, the boat being made in the future might be very good and the result of the gradual improvements made generation after generation. If a god comes into being in this way, then the humble insights of the original person served their purpose, and while not retained, they were improved upon, which might be better than retained.

In a sense the original humble boat maker is as important as all of the subsequent boat makers and the eventual boat making god. There is continuity there. It just isn't the kind we perhaps like, where we get to remember each iteration individually and get to be each being involved instead of having to pass the torch and bow out.

On the subject of oblivion, I have one I call, 'the oblivion behind you.' I think it's the most likely one. So when you die and experience another body and life, you can't remember what was before that and so you draw a blank when you try to cast your mind that far back. That's the oblivion behind you. As far as oblivions go, that one is worth believing in. It's one we can experience now if we simply cast our minds back before we can remember. When we approach the end of this life and we anticipate an oblivion, I'm inclined to think it's the oblivion that will be behind us once we are on the other side and can no longer remember this life.

Eric Steinhart explains that we can't live through death. We can have life after death but we cannot live through it. A good example is a video game. Sonic the Hedgehog, once he has fallen off the screen, has to just start again either from the beginning or from a checkpoint. There is no experienced link between after falling off the screen and the reboot. Similarly, in GTA, when you die, you wake up in hospital seemingly having survived with the help of the doctors. In biocentrism that's called the break in continuity. Even an NDE has a sort of break in continuity because you find yourself in another body out of your body. That isn't 100% continuity. If you go down the tunnel of light into another world, that is continuity or your awareness but it isn't continuity of the life you are leaving.

I often don't recall my teenage years. I'm so different now from how I was then. It makes me uncomfortable to think about them. It's as though I've shed personalities like a snake sheds its skin. Not much of a stretch to think I will end up shedding the entire life eventually, if I'm already shedding parts of it using wilful amnesia.

Steinhart thinks we are like the boat. We will have subsequent iterations that are improvements upon previous ones. But that's ascending reiterative reincarnation. It would lead to us all becoming gods. My wishful thinking alarm bells ring on that one.

[Dana Lomas]

Well, for whatever unknown reason, any curiosity about what becomes of this experiencing of a 'me' in this body-mind spacesuit, upon being dispelled, seems to have likewise dissipated. But hey, it all could make an imaginative 'movie' ... says TWE to no-one in particular  :)

[David Gabriel]

In Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson, he explains that there are parts of the brain that are involved in thinking about certain subjects and they can be burned out. He explains that certain zen practices if done for long enough can burn out parts of the brain responsible for thinking about things such as paradoxes and riddles. 

I believe similarly it is possible to burn out parts of the brain that are involved in metaphysical speculations. Now of course this is only a metaphor: burning out parts of the brain responsible for certain tasks. How it really works won't necessarily be like a sparkler burning out. 

I'm always interested in hearing something new on this subject but I must admit I've exhausted the supply of much of what is available. 

[Dana Lomas]

R.A.W. was a fascinating character ... Somehow it feels that rather than 'burning out', it's just now being out-shone. :) 

[tjssailor]

You've said this before and I'm not sure what the problem is.  Of course there is no real flow of time or history but if you buy into that whole thing there seems to be a tendency towards things becoming more "good".  We're always exhorted to being more accepting, tolerant, loving, etc.  When's the last time you saw a commercial indicating you should hate your neighbor?  As far as reincarnation there really no individuals being reincarnated but M&L incarnating in all cases.  Still if you accept the whole linear reincarnation thing there seem to be a lot of child prodigies showing up with knowledge and talents they could not have learned.  I'm not just talking about playing the piano but things like 10-year-olds starting non-profits to help others.  This is in line with NDErs tell us the whole purpose of life is to generate good feelings and love.  So we could ask the question: are more good feelings being generated now then one hundred years ago?  I'd say yes.  One hundred years ago there were fewer incarnations of M&L around and some horrific wars were going on.  Things are still fucked up now but not nearly as bad as then.  Now there are 7 billion incarnations of M@L each one capable of creating some "good feelings" each day.  Perhaps if the trend continues it will lead to M&L realizing itself completely and creating heaven on earth.

[David Gabriel]

All good points. I personally don't know. Not in terms of infinity. This is just one planet. If my experiences improve I won't complain. I just don't want to emotionally invest in that.

[Mark Tetzner]

70 years ago 60 Million were killed in ww2 there are constantly the most horrific things going on just as bad as back then. I will spare us to list them. I think i order to change that the brain would have to change but its a born killer. I think you atttribute too much power to evolution it does not happen quite that fast. Also some believe that 600 thousand years down the line there wont be any more humans because we have flaws in our genetic code which will - accumulated - lead to our extinction. I dont believe in any "heaven on earth" and think that kids founding whatever orgs means absolutely nothing when it comes to supposedly this place becoming better.

I agree no one gets reincarnated. It totally flies into the face of the mal-idea. Seriously, reincarnation is just hocus pocus.

[David Gabriel]

It depends what your definition of reincarnation is. I consider myself to be a reincarnation right now because I was very different 20 years ago. I've already explained to you that if you have enough experiences in succession they become so different that you're basically a different person in personality and that is a more up to date definition of reincarnation. I'm not suggesting that a soul leaves one body to go in another. That is the old definition of reincarnation. There are new ones now that make more sense.

[Peter Jones]

On Friday, 16 June 2017 13:14:35 UTC+1, David Gabriel wrote:

In Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson, he explains that there are parts of the brain that are involved in thinking about certain subjects and they can be burned out. He explains that certain zen practices if done for long enough can burn out parts of the brain responsible for thinking about things such as paradoxes and riddles. 

I believe similarly it is possible to burn out parts of the brain that are involved in metaphysical speculations. Now of course this is only a metaphor: burning out parts of the brain responsible for certain tasks. How it really works won't necessarily be like a sparkler burning out.

I think burning our ones brain would be a very bad idea. The Zen approach would be to keep working until ones sees that there are no paradoxes and riddles, with ones brain still intact. Paradoxes and riddles arise for dualism, not nondualism. This is how we can tell which of them makes the most sense.  

[Peter Jones]

On Saturday, 17 June 2017 07:22:02 UTC+1, Mark Tetzner wrote:

I agree no one gets reincarnated. It totally flies into the face of the mal-idea. Seriously, reincarnation is just hocus pocus.

Hmm. There are various different ideas of reincarnation some of which do not work and some of which do. The difficulty of denying it is that living becomes a compete waste of time. if we don't know otherwise then perhaps it is, but if so then the religious literature is largely nonsense. Thus you're making a big claim here. Perhaps have a look at rebirth in Buddhism, which takes us away from the more naive views about reincarnation.    

[Mark Tetzner]

I personally do not believe that living is a waste of time, but surely that it ends once and for all after we die.
That does not exclude consciousness possibly continuing in whatever sense, but to bend my beliefs after
what makes sense to me is not somethign I do. For example, lets say I am "MAL" and I order 5 glasses
of wine. When done with them I will just order 5 more to entertain myself. Does not mean the first
5 glasses go to heaven or somethign. Their time is wasted so to speak.

[Peter Jones]

I doubt glasses go to Heaven :)

If everything  ends on our death then the Perennial philosophy is nonsense. Perhaps it is, but I think it deserves a stronger test than just that of whether you can make sense of it at this time. It may be that your idea of reincarnation doesn't make sense but are you sure that the Buddha's idea suffers from the same problem? How would you explain the countless 'reports from the front' that claim the reality of rebirth and the long-term evolution of consciousness?

In your defense, most aspects of the Upanishadic doctrine can be logically proved but I have to say that as far as I can tell karma and rebirth are not among them. These seem to be 'lemmas', not ruled out by analysis but also not ruled in.

Still, it would be odd if the Buddha got everything right except this, and the whole esoteric tradition with him. No? 

[Dana Lomas]

Why are you willing to accept the experiencing of an after-life, but reject the experiencing of another life? Again, I see no such conditions or limitations to TWE experiencing, except insofar as they are self-imposed. Just curious, as it seems a rather arbitrary fixation.

[Mark Tetzner]

You probably dont believe in Bratwurst-heaven either, which has been well documented under Tetzner-doctrine?
Millions of reports where I come from.

Kidding aside, I like the idea of "not ruled out or in, logically".

Could you kindly let me know where these rebirth-things are documented when it comes to actual reports, I would like
to read some of them.

I am currently reading a book called life after death by Stephen Hawley Martin which in the second or so chapter features
a 2-year old toddler who is the reincarnation of an american fighter-pilot and by knowing just about everything made
this very clear to his astonished parents. Then later telling them how he chose them as parents.....oh.....thats what I mean,
stories can be told and written down any time, anywhere, I dont believe a word of this particular one. If stories and reports
are to be meaningful, in my view, they must be plentiful and obviously verified to the strongest degree possible by people
who scientifically catalogue them etc - in any event, looking forward to your reply.

[Mark Tetzner]

Dana, I think only because there are no limitations somehow "built" into TWE doesn't mean we dont need an explanation outside of things just magically transpiring here that I can grasp. Sure, everything that is beyond my scope could be possible, but as a hypothesis or Fantasie but I would need a bit more.

[Mark Tetzner]

Secondly I can envision a ballon filled with water floating in a pool...then bursting....boom. Its gone but its essence is still there.
But that same mental content showing up in a different ballon years later does push it in my view.

[Mark Tetzner]

Its like when someone says the universe created me once it could create me again. All good, I am just cashing out personally out of these speculations. I like some science or inferences to be present, the rest is not for me. (Even experiences, just maybe, provided there are enough of them).

[Dana Lomas]

Well, there are actually quite a few research studies (even funded by universities, amazingly enough) of case histories of individuals who claim to have experiences of other incarnations that have been verified to the satisfaction of the researchers -- and we're talking bonafide psychologists, etc, with all the credentials one could expect, given the esoteric nature of the subject matter. A quick google search of 'case studies of reincarnation' will lead you to them. But of course all of them can be dismissed as fantasies, if there is no willingness to give them serious consideration solely based on one's own lack of experience. In the case of my own experiencing there is no reason to reject them as any less valid than claims of experiencing an after-life. And yet I keep an open mind about NDEs even though I haven't actually had that experience ... at least not in the experience of this incarnation ... not yet :))

[David Gabriel]

The observable universe could not have created you by chance the first time. It would be ludicrous to think it would create you by chance on your second time. If it's going to create you for a second time, it will be deliberately.

You might be wondering what I'm on about. But you read Beyond Biocentrism. It explains that chance couldn't even write Moby Dick within the age of the observable universe. Your human body is more complicated than Moby Dick, a mere book.

If you believe the basics of biocentrism then you believe you were not the result of blind chance but instead nature's intelligent algorithms. I'm assuming you do not accept the basics of biocentrism, but how would you explain the fact blind chance could not produce Moby Dick within the age of the observable universe, even if given a type writer?

If mind at large creates individuals, then destroys them, and creates new individuals, then the individuals die but mind at large does not and in that case mind at large is having reincarnations as entertainment. That's still reincarnation. It isn't you specifically but that's unimportant really.

I've only ever known the perceptions and contents of my own mind. I'm in a sense holding up the scaffolding of the world by being aware of it. I do not know anyone else's mind or world directly. That's why it's called theory of mind and not direct experience of other mind.

If I were to not be holding the world together in my mind by being aware of as much of it that I am, then it wouldn't exist for me. If I did not exist, then nothing would exist for me nor would I exist for any thing. If a particular configuration of world needs for me to hold it together by being aware of it, then that's probably my purpose. It would make sense that consciousness is a thing that has a purpose and a function, rather than a temporarily generated epiphenomenon of a physical object such as a brain.

If consciousness is an ephemerality produced by a brain and it has no energy identity, that is to say it has no physical existence, then it is a ghost. The brain is generating a temporary ghost. That's totally ridiculous and stupid. There's a film that recently came out in the cinema about this, it's called Ghost in the Shell. It only briefly touches upon the subject. The original was a cartoon and it went into more detail.

I can see how consciousness is the ground of being by holding worlds together by being aware of them. As consciousness you're a cog in the machine. Unless you can become something other than consciousness, you will remain that cog in this machine or be used in another one.

[Mark Tetzner]

Dana, I dont claim to know it all, its just that I am not rejecting the thought based on not having had the experience myself, for example, like you, I am open to the NDE-experiences as meaning "something". I could of course read reincarnation-reports, but this entire "bonafide-psychologist"-stuff does not impress me at all. I guess to me the traditional way of looking at reincarnation (remembering past lives etc) is silly, kind of a each-to-his-own deal.

[Mark Tetzner]

David. I believe Lanza in general wanted to show that what people like to think about "co-incidence" is sometimes a magical belief in its own right.
He made a good contribution to pushing down co-incidence from its probably undeserved thrown of being the "de-mystefier". I am not sure if he mean
that the universe created me personally on purpose. Remember that I am who I am because the 2 DNA-threads by mom and dad somehow threaded themselves together. Genetics, at least that is the state of current affairs, has randomness to it to a degree. BTW I may not have read the books thoroughly enough and surely have not read them 5-6 times like yourself. Especially the tie-in with Buddhism seems to escape me because he might hint at hit from time to time but I think he specifically said he wanted his book to be "science only". I think you encouraged me in the past to study his entire blog but I have only partially done so.

[Dana Lomas]

Well, as mentioned, one's own experiencing of it is really what leaves a lasting impression -- whether anyone else is open-minded about it or not. Clearly, in the absence of such experiencing, there's nothing else that will convince you, if someone else's experiencing and serious research into it isn't enough. 

[Mark Tetzner]

That is true. First hand experience is all that really can make one a believer. Third-party-stories can still make you think.
There are so many NDA-reports its kinda interesting. If they did not exist there are still the reports about drug-experiences.
But you cant lose doubt over reading those alone.

[Dana Lomas]

There are also countless reports of experiencing other incarnations, but somehow that matters less, and they need to provide irrefutable factual evidence ... like maybe a photograph!? :)) ... Sorry, I don't get the bias. 

[Mark Tetzner]

I dont see how becoming open to one idea makes me biased becaus I am not open to everything.
After all they could have provided photographs but did not.

There is no reason to believe in everything (or even anything) because people report stuff.

Not for me at least.

There needs to be enormous momentum or I will dismiss it.

NDA has that at least.

I read the other day that 4% of Germans had an NDE, compared to 5% in the States.

Even thought that is 25% difference, it seems to show that one of the most atheistic countries
is kinda close up compared to the very religious crowd in the U.S.

[Dana Lomas]

Sorry, since you won't even consider the serious research into numerous case studies done by university funded researchers seeking evidence, I just assumed you were biased against them ... silly me! :))

[David Gabriel]

In biocentrism, you personally occurring by chance is considered to be ridiculous. Yes you personally. If you think Lanza only means that people and things in general occurring by chance is ridiculous, then you've not studied his material enough.

I'm not sure which is the longer shot, you personally coming into existence or the world and people in general coming into existence and with no specific requirement about who those people are. But even your DNA example to do with the sperm and the egg, that has two associated opposing teams.

People have made diagrams showing how improbable every sperm and egg combination was that lead to your existence. One side says that the probably of you existing is 100% because you do exist. But that is sneaky use of words. You do exist and so of course the chance that you exist is 100%. The sperm and egg combinations are irrelevant in that wording of it. But it is said by other mathematicians that the projected odds of you coming into existence thousands of years before you did come into existence were extremely unlikely. 

If you say what is the chance that everything that needed to happen in order for you to exist happened, the chance is of course 100% because it did all happen. It's only if you say what was the projected chance that it would all happen prior to it all happening, that you get your answer of 1 in quite a lot. And you know what, I'm going to quote a reputable website on this:

"The path begins with the odds of your dad meeting your mom (1 in 20,000). This is multiplied by the chances of them staying together long enough to have kids (1 in 2,000), and so on... The probability of you existing at all comes out to 1 in 10^2,685,000 — yes, that's a 10 followed by 2,685,000 zeroes!11 Jun 2012"

Lanza does not believe we each individually came about by chance. But he doesn't believe a God did it either. Ultimately he believes we're all facets of one mind. He doesn't call it mind at large. But he offers something in the way of individuality as well. He explains that each person has a unique feeling. That's their consciousness. Although it is part of one consciousness ultimately. But that's still a touch of individuality in a sense. It might be illusory but it's better than nothing.

Fred Alan Wolf thinks that we're all just god masturbating in a really complex way.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the universe created you personally on purpose. In biocentrism it is an open question as to whether you have always existed in some form or whether you came into existence at some point, somehow. Bernardo offers one of the best explanations of this. He says that awareness might have just been pure awareness right at the start, and it developed the ability to reflect itself like a mirror being bent to show itself to itself and reflect itself. He doesn't use a mirror as an example. I think it was some sort of liquid metal used as the example. But if we've always existed, this offers an explanation as to why we haven't always existed as something complicated. Our initial existence might have been one of absolute simplicity. Just pure awareness.

That would work in biocentrism, which does not say one way or the other whether we have always existed or had a natal moment. (A beginning moment.)

Eric Steinhart explains that a simple thing can create a more complex thing. Usually people think it takes a more complex thing to create a more simple thing. Genetic engineers could grow a more complex human being. It's within the capacity of science to do this. If a normal human causes the creation of a more complex human using genetic engineering, then a less complex thing has created a more complex thing. That's a way out there example but there is an even better one. A human could build a robot that is more complex than a human. Again that's a less complex thing building a more complex thing.

I haven't explained this perfectly well but rest assured, a less complex thing can create a more complex thing. This means things can build from the ground up. Primordial awareness might similarly have built from there up. This is implied by what Bernardo says in Why Materialism is Baloney. Remember, don't make the mistake of thinking a complex thing can only build a less complex thing.

As for direct experience, my bet is on dreams. I've had some really weird dreams that indicate some of this stuff might be true. But unless you have these same dreams yourself, you won't believe it. 

[Mark Tetzner]

David, sure... its like knocking over a bucket with sand, the probability of each grain is right where it is is similar to what you explained. Does it not make sense to stay grounded in common sense. For the sake of argument we will assume that MAL exists for real - so that is the only real thing in everything and everything else is determined by genetics which is largely a random-event. Consiousness....is the ONE thing.

I am of course hesitant to believe that there is this very individual feeling that can not be explained rationally. It makes sense that each human feels different. Its not what I believe to be consciousness.

I am not sure about a complex thing building a more complex thing is possible when you are talking about a human. The complexity in just a millimeter of genetic code is mind-boggling. However that does not mean that nature cant do this as it does this all the time.

Alex Wolff said it best I guess, ha.

Dana I am biased against your professors and all their funding because I think that if someone proves reincarnation (past live memories) he has underwent selection bias or any other bias. But is, whatever the reason, completely on the wrong track.

[Mark Tetzner]

David why are the odds of Mom and Dad meeting 1 in 20.000 only?

[Mark Tetzner]

Dana, I dont really believe in an afterlife where I personally will "hang" in a new world with new or old friends and parents.
I believe there could be consciousness in the sense BK explained it, kind of re-experiencing my own thoughts for a while,
or, even better, simpy become a part of mal. .
If consciousness is all there is this is even plausible.
Continuing existence as whatever mental stuff will be going on. But not a life in a traditional sense.

[Mark Tetzner]

David, Lanza said several times that the feeling of "I am" is generated by the brain. I found that surprising, aren't most here
of the opinion that I am - awareness is this universal thing that then splinters off into alters?
Courious on your take on this.
Mark

[Dana Lomas]

'I believe in this' ... 'I don't believe in that' ... Meh!  Perhaps BK has got it wrong, and the ontological primitive should be That Which Believes It Or Not :)

[tjssailor]

Well it's a well known spiritual premise that if you look find horror you will find it and if you look to love you will find it.  I prefer to look  for and find love.  M@L is love and light.  M@L creates this dream, finds itself in it, forgets itself and sometimes commits atrocities against itself.  When it stops dreaming  it remembers and even re-feels these atrocities. When it returns to the dream it remembers this pain at some level  creates less of it and tends more to it's true nature of love.  It's a feedback loop that tends more to the true nature of M@L  with each incarnation.  The brain isn't doing anything and physical evolution is meaningless.  Spiritual evolution towards love can happen instantaneously as in NDEs whose numbers will only continue to increase.  As for those kids who are so advanced they're doing things we couldn't even think of; to say they are not having a positive impact on the world is cynical at best and idiotic at worst.

On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 2:22:02 AM UTC-4, Mark Tetzner wrote:

70 years ago 60 Million were killed in ww2 there are constantly the most horrific things going on just as bad as back then. I will spare us to list them. I think i order to change that the brain would have to change but its a born killer. I think you atttribute too much power to evolution it does not happen quite that fast. Also some believe that 600 thousand years down the line there wont be any more humans because we have flaws in our genetic code which will - accumulated - lead to our extinction. I dont believe in any "heaven on earth" and think that kids founding whatever orgs means absolutely nothing when it comes to supposedly this place becoming better.

I agree no one gets reincarnated. It totally flies into the face of the mal-idea. Seriously, reincarnation is just hocus pocus.

[Mark Tetzner]

Dana or That which Believes Everything :)

[Mark Tetzner]

Tj - thanks for the plug that I could be an idiot :) No but what I meant of course is that there is no way that kids "evolved" or that the world evolved since we were kids, as evolution does not happen that fast. In any event for orgs to be founded the internet would have to be around and back then it wasnt. I doubt kids founding nonprofit orgs without it. Cheers.

[David Gabriel]

Humans right now might not be able to make a more complex human using genetic engineering but they will be able to in the future, if progress is not hampered by catastrophe, disaster or war. You must not be all that familiar with stem cells, cloning, and gene editing. Perhaps a more complex human is misleading. If you would agree that a human whose organs can be replaced by re-growing them from its own tissue is a better human, then yes current humans can build a better human. This can 100% be achieved with known science. It's an example of a less good thing creating a better thing than itself. That isn't necessarily complexity. But the point is something can create a better version of itself or have a hand in doing so.

Remember the boat example. An initial person figures out how to make a boat but it isn't a very good one. He teaches his son how to make it and the son figures out an improvement that he teaches to his son. The initial boat is the most inferior boat. The point of this is that things can start out simple. People think a god more complex than anything needs to exist first in order for something more simple than itself to be created. This is not true. Things can have humble beginnings and give rise to more complex things.

The individual feeling people have is intuited. It's just a feeling. It isn't science. Lanza puts forward both science and intuitions to make his case. His system isn't complete. He has some excellent points however and anyone that takes the time to thoroughly study his material will come to know these points.

I don't know why the odds of mom and dad are only 1 in 20,000. I'm by no means a mathematician. But I have an example for you that I've said on this forum before:

If a man wins the Euro millions, it's big news to him. When he goes to collect his winnings from the lottery headquarters, he is a fluke walking through the doors as far as he is concerned. But he is expected by the staff of the lottery headquarters. The staff are expecting someone with a winning ticket to walk through the doors. They aren't expecting someone specific. They're just expecting whoever happens to be the winner. To them, the person coming to pick up the ticket is not fluke. He is just the winner they are expecting.

But to the winner he is a fluke. The winner was expecting someone to win but he was not expecting himself to win. For himself to win he has to be extremely fortunate. If the staff of the lottery were expecting him specifically to win, then when he does, he will be a fluke to them as well. But they weren't expecting anyone specifically to win. They were just expecting someone to win. Whoever that someone is has no significance to them because they didn't know who it would be. But that someone has significance to himself when he wins.

Here's my point. You probably don't feel like you've won the Euro millions. But the maths says you've won something even harder to win than the Euro millions: your birth. Some atheist materialists train themselves to feel like they've won the existence lottery. If they get good at this it gives them a similar euphoria to the one felt by a lottery winner. But they have to train themselves to do this. Very few people genuinely and naturally feel like a lottery winner due to their existence. On an intuition level, this indicates that we have won no such thing. That we were going to exist and not by chance.

The body knows the difference between experiencing existing and winning the euro millions. When it comes to existing, it just feels normal. There is no euphoria. When it comes to winning the euro millions, it does not feel normal. There is a euphoria. Therefore one is not chance and the other is chance. Body knows the difference. This is on an intuitive level only. It's not science.

 

Lanza may have said the feeling of I Am is generated by the brain but he has a couple of definitions for the brain. He may have meant mind. Sometimes he uses the words head and brain in replacement of the word mind. What is more, I have heard him say that the feeling of I Am is an energy 'operating in' the brain rather than generated by the brain. He isn't perfect and so he may have muddled his words up here and there.

[Mark Tetzner]

Thank you for clarifying on my Lanza-question, David.

BTW I agree that humans can create a more complex human in the lab, it was just not my idea of "creating" something, but now I get you.

Yes those statistics that are amazing considering who´s perspective you adapt, are highly interesting.

I came to the conclusion that its not a miracle, but according to what most here believe it works kind of like this:

"I have to be here, the odds are 100%".

Thats of course if you follow the "I am not my name, I am not my body, I am not...." - model.

The rest, how we specifically are, is still the result of chaos or so I believe.

Cheers, Mark

[David Gabriel]

Chaos exists in biocentrism. I haven't figured out all of the details. I don't disagree with what you've said here. I'm glad you understood all of my points.

Cheers,

David

[Peter Jones]

On Saturday, 17 June 2017 15:23:41 UTC+1, Mark Tetzner wrote:

Could you kindly let me know where these rebirth-things are documented when it comes to actual reports, I would like
to read some of them.

 

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd47.htm

http://www.buddhanet.net/funbud10.htm

[tjssailor]

Yes kids and adults can evolve spiritually, morally, and mentally in an instant as shown by the NDE literature.  It's got nothing to do with the physical configuration of the brain.

[Mark Tetzner]

Alrighty then...

[Mark Tetzner]

Thanks for these Peter.....