Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What happens to us after death?
16 views
Skip to first unread message
casey
Jul 8, 2012, 8:52:01 PM7/8/12
to
What happens after we die can be answered if we
understand what we are before we die.
So we don't have to wait until we die to answer
the question. And even if we "found ourselves in
heaven or hell" after death it wouldn't prove
life after death only that whatever appeared in
heaven or hell had the memory of someone who
once lived. So you will not find out for sure
if you (the now you in heaven or hell) really
existed once before after death.
All the evidence is that we are a brain process.
The brain creates a model of its environment and
that includes a model of itself both as a physical
entity and as a process creating that model.
The brain is continually changing so what is it
that continues while the brain is intact that can
be called the Self.
In a dreamless sleep or coma the Self is "turned off".
When the brain awakes the Self returns once again.
At least the Self experiences itself as returning
again because it has a episodic memory system.
That Self can access memories of previous brain states
which included itself as being present.
In reality you only experience yourself as the same
person throughout your life because at any give time
you have access to a episodic memory. Without it
you would have to say you have just "woken up" which
is exactly what subjects with certain brain damage
do say. You would deny that you existed as an awake
person 10 minutes ago when in fact you did exist as
an awake person.
It is this NOW memory of a past and predicted future
that makes up the continual and yet changing Self.
understand what we are before we die.
So we don't have to wait until we die to answer
the question. And even if we "found ourselves in
heaven or hell" after death it wouldn't prove
life after death only that whatever appeared in
heaven or hell had the memory of someone who
once lived. So you will not find out for sure
if you (the now you in heaven or hell) really
existed once before after death.
All the evidence is that we are a brain process.
The brain creates a model of its environment and
that includes a model of itself both as a physical
entity and as a process creating that model.
The brain is continually changing so what is it
that continues while the brain is intact that can
be called the Self.
In a dreamless sleep or coma the Self is "turned off".
When the brain awakes the Self returns once again.
At least the Self experiences itself as returning
again because it has a episodic memory system.
That Self can access memories of previous brain states
which included itself as being present.
In reality you only experience yourself as the same
person throughout your life because at any give time
you have access to a episodic memory. Without it
you would have to say you have just "woken up" which
is exactly what subjects with certain brain damage
do say. You would deny that you existed as an awake
person 10 minutes ago when in fact you did exist as
an awake person.
It is this NOW memory of a past and predicted future
that makes up the continual and yet changing Self.
Fred M. McNeill
Jul 8, 2012, 10:17:13 PM7/8/12
to
1. The situation remains mysterious, i.e.,
you don't know the whole story.
2. 'Human' constraints limit what you can know.
3. Any putative higher dimensions may contain all
of any lower dimension, including 'time'.
4. 'Time' and 'death' may only be abridged
representations to meet 'human' constraints.
5. Granted, the situation stinks and proves the
malfeasance of any putative gods, but there it
is, hubris and all.
6.Hubris does not depict nor prove 'reality'.
7. There must be more to the 'bigger' situation
than physical structures and information
structures, but there are those nasty 'human'
constraints again.
JP
Jul 9, 2012, 12:39:40 AM7/9/12
to
Reset button for Adam but it somehow malfunctioned and Adam got a
partial memory of what happened before.
I am still wondering if it is a software or hardware problem.
JP
Arindam Banerjee
Jul 9, 2012, 6:07:15 AM7/9/12
to
On Jul 9, 10:52 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> What happens after we die can be answered if we
> understand what we are before we die.
>
> So we don't have to wait until we die to answer
> the question. And even if we "found ourselves in
> heaven or hell" after death it wouldn't prove
> life after death only that whatever appeared in
> heaven or hell had the memory of someone who
> once lived. So you will not find out for sure
> if you (the now you in heaven or hell) really
> existed once before after death.
>
> All the evidence is that we are a brain process.
We perceive through our brains, yes. The brain is thus a part of us,
> What happens after we die can be answered if we
> understand what we are before we die.
>
> So we don't have to wait until we die to answer
> the question. And even if we "found ourselves in
> heaven or hell" after death it wouldn't prove
> life after death only that whatever appeared in
> heaven or hell had the memory of someone who
> once lived. So you will not find out for sure
> if you (the now you in heaven or hell) really
> existed once before after death.
>
> All the evidence is that we are a brain process.
not the other way around.
casey
Jul 9, 2012, 6:51:07 AM7/9/12
to
On Jul 9, 8:07 pm, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
brains"??
Physically all that exists is a brain.
Think of characters in a computer game. Physically all that exists is
the computer running a program.
wrote:
> On Jul 9, 10:52 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > All the evidence is that we are a brain process.
>
> We perceive through our brains, yes. The brain is thus a part of us,
> not the other way around.
And what do you imagine the "we" is in, "we perceive through our
>
> > All the evidence is that we are a brain process.
>
> We perceive through our brains, yes. The brain is thus a part of us,
> not the other way around.
brains"??
Physically all that exists is a brain.
Think of characters in a computer game. Physically all that exists is
the computer running a program.
Arindam Banerjee
Jul 9, 2012, 7:22:33 AM7/9/12
to
On Jul 9, 8:51 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 8:07 pm, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 10:52 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > All the evidence is that we are a brain process.
>
> > We perceive through our brains, yes. The brain is thus a part of us,
> > not the other way around.
>
> And what do you imagine the "we" is in, "we perceive through our
> brains"??
We meaning not just I, but other entities we perceive through our
> On Jul 9, 8:07 pm, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 10:52 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > All the evidence is that we are a brain process.
>
> > We perceive through our brains, yes. The brain is thus a part of us,
> > not the other way around.
>
> And what do you imagine the "we" is in, "we perceive through our
> brains"??
senses and their actions and reactions process by our brains, to be as
conscious as ourselves, in this phase between our own birth and our
own death. The mirror also provides a view of our own bodies, and if
we do some kind of advanced scanning of our heads, we can get a
picture of our brain. Which proves that the brain is a part of our
body.
> Physically all that exists is a brain.
skull, skeleton, blood, heart... etc
> Think of characters in a computer game. Physically all that exists is
> the computer running a program.
played for the enjoyment or interest or egos of very superior entities
(call them gods or whatever), then still that does not rule out the
fact that in our own brief roles we have more than just a brain.
Admitted that the brain is very important, that it is our link to the
gods who are watching the drama, still it is not all that is - for it
also needs the support of other organs to exist!
Like in the computer we don't just have memory and cpu, we also have
peripherals, displays, I/O, applications, controls, comms, etc etc.
So the proper analogy is brain::body to memory+CPU::computer.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
casey
Jul 9, 2012, 8:36:21 AM7/9/12
to
On Jul 9, 9:22 pm, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
but the Self, the "I", is in my view a brain function. What you
consider part of yourself is actually determined by the brain.
A stroke can result in the brain rejecting an arm as part of the "I".
There are also techniques to make the brain take on inanimate objects
as part of the "I". Organ donation assumes the brain death, in other
words the belief the "I" will not take place in that particular brain
ever again. Without the brain there is no "I", no feeling thinking
personhood. IMHO.
> > Think of characters in a computer game. Physically all that exists is
> > the computer running a program.
>
> If you are implying that we are all figments of a huge ongoing drama
> played for the enjoyment or interest or egos of very superior entities
> (call them gods or whatever), then still that does not rule out the
> fact that in our own brief roles we have more than just a brain.
No I am not suggesting we are the playthings of gods. I am suggesting
the "I", that thinking feeling experiencing person you feel yourself
to be is a process taking place in the brain.
> Admitted that the brain is very important, that it is our link to the
> gods who are watching the drama, still it is not all that is - for it
> also needs the support of other organs to exist!
No I don't imagine any link to any gods. My beliefs are evidence
based.
> Like in the computer we don't just have memory and cpu, we also have
> peripherals, displays, I/O, applications, controls, comms, etc etc.
> So the proper analogy is brain::body to memory+CPU::computer.
But they are not part of the content of the program they are the means
by which the program is realised. The content of a program is its data
not the physical components that enable the storing of the data.
The same is true for us. All that exists is a brain. All that is
taking
place is neurons sending and processing information. But that
information
isn't about the neurons even though the neurons are the things doing
it.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
>
>
wrote:
> On Jul 9, 8:51 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 8:07 pm, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 9, 10:52 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > All the evidence is that we are a brain process.
>
> > > We perceive through our brains, yes. The brain is thus a part of us,
> > > not the other way around.
>
> > And what do you imagine the "we" is in, "we perceive through our
> > brains"??
>
> We meaning not just I, but other entities we perceive through our
> senses and their actions and reactions process by our brains, to be as
> conscious as ourselves, in this phase between our own birth and our
> own death. The mirror also provides a view of our own bodies, and if
> we do some kind of advanced scanning of our heads, we can get a
> picture of our brain. Which proves that the brain is a part of our
> body.
>
> > Physically all that exists is a brain.
>
> Apart from a brain, there are other aspects in the physical self -
> skull, skeleton, blood, heart... etc
Sure and the rest of the self is required for the brain to function
> On Jul 9, 8:51 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 8:07 pm, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 9, 10:52 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > All the evidence is that we are a brain process.
>
> > > We perceive through our brains, yes. The brain is thus a part of us,
> > > not the other way around.
>
> > And what do you imagine the "we" is in, "we perceive through our
> > brains"??
>
> We meaning not just I, but other entities we perceive through our
> senses and their actions and reactions process by our brains, to be as
> conscious as ourselves, in this phase between our own birth and our
> own death. The mirror also provides a view of our own bodies, and if
> we do some kind of advanced scanning of our heads, we can get a
> picture of our brain. Which proves that the brain is a part of our
> body.
>
> > Physically all that exists is a brain.
>
> Apart from a brain, there are other aspects in the physical self -
> skull, skeleton, blood, heart... etc
but the Self, the "I", is in my view a brain function. What you
consider part of yourself is actually determined by the brain.
A stroke can result in the brain rejecting an arm as part of the "I".
There are also techniques to make the brain take on inanimate objects
as part of the "I". Organ donation assumes the brain death, in other
words the belief the "I" will not take place in that particular brain
ever again. Without the brain there is no "I", no feeling thinking
personhood. IMHO.
> > Think of characters in a computer game. Physically all that exists is
> > the computer running a program.
>
> If you are implying that we are all figments of a huge ongoing drama
> played for the enjoyment or interest or egos of very superior entities
> (call them gods or whatever), then still that does not rule out the
> fact that in our own brief roles we have more than just a brain.
the "I", that thinking feeling experiencing person you feel yourself
to be is a process taking place in the brain.
> Admitted that the brain is very important, that it is our link to the
> gods who are watching the drama, still it is not all that is - for it
> also needs the support of other organs to exist!
based.
> Like in the computer we don't just have memory and cpu, we also have
> peripherals, displays, I/O, applications, controls, comms, etc etc.
> So the proper analogy is brain::body to memory+CPU::computer.
by which the program is realised. The content of a program is its data
not the physical components that enable the storing of the data.
The same is true for us. All that exists is a brain. All that is
taking
place is neurons sending and processing information. But that
information
isn't about the neurons even though the neurons are the things doing
it.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
>
>
Giga
Jul 9, 2012, 8:47:54 AM7/9/12
to
"casey" <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:d2bb216a-5343-4ce8...@tu6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
that in way everything that ever existed still does and perhaps will always,
including all these moments that make up the self.
Zinnic
Jul 9, 2012, 8:48:24 AM7/9/12
to
On Jul 9, 6:22 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
You are not very good at analogies. (cf river and floating markers).
Your brain:body::memory+CPU:computer analogy makes no reference to the
"we" function of the body's brain and the analogous program 'run' by
the computer's memory+CPU.
Hope this helps
Zinnic
Your brain:body::memory+CPU:computer analogy makes no reference to the
"we" function of the body's brain and the analogous program 'run' by
the computer's memory+CPU.
Hope this helps
Zinnic
Zinnic
Jul 9, 2012, 9:03:13 AM7/9/12
to
On Jul 9, 7:47 am, "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> "casey" <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
And what if it is not? Then 'in a way' and 'perhaps' what? :)
end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> "casey" <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
Zerkon
Jul 9, 2012, 9:17:27 AM7/9/12
to
In article <d2bb216a-5343-4ce8-9035-d45112626517
@tu6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, jgkj...@yahoo.com.au says...
No, all the evidence is not that we are a brain process. "All the
evidence" should read "All the evidence I choose or was taught to
believe in". All the evidence is, in fact, we are a human organism.
A brain alone can not process anything including a Self or itself. A
brain organ can 'create' a model like a heart can 'give' love or legs
can run fast.
> The brain creates a model of its environment
which apparently does not include a creation of inside a cranial cavity
or floating in fluid.
Self seems strangely like a computer avatar but who also has access to
the computer.
So the self is or is not created by the brain? The self is part of an
environment? Or is the brain? And how it is possible for self
experiencing only itself.... ?
@tu6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, jgkj...@yahoo.com.au says...
> All the evidence is that we are a brain process.
>
> The brain creates a model ...
>
No, all the evidence is not that we are a brain process. "All the
evidence" should read "All the evidence I choose or was taught to
believe in". All the evidence is, in fact, we are a human organism.
A brain alone can not process anything including a Self or itself. A
brain organ can 'create' a model like a heart can 'give' love or legs
can run fast.
> The brain creates a model of its environment
or floating in fluid.
Self seems strangely like a computer avatar but who also has access to
the computer.
So the self is or is not created by the brain? The self is part of an
environment? Or is the brain? And how it is possible for self
experiencing only itself.... ?
donsto...@hotmail.com
Jul 9, 2012, 9:17:51 AM7/9/12
to
Zerkon
Jul 9, 2012, 9:19:18 AM7/9/12
to
In article <da354b77-5527-4ed5-9716-9fb3e58cdb86
@l6g2000pbf.googlegroups.com>, banerjee...@gmail.com says...
@l6g2000pbf.googlegroups.com>, banerjee...@gmail.com says...
> We perceive through our brains, yes.
>
We perceive through our entire life.
>
Albert Tatlock
Jul 9, 2012, 9:52:12 AM7/9/12
to
"casey" <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:d2bb216a-5343-4ce8...@tu6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>
> The brain creates a model of its environment and
> that includes a model of itself both as a physical
> entity and as a process creating that model.
yes
>
> The brain is continually changing so what is it
> that continues while the brain is intact that can
> be called the Self.
why have you capitalised 'self'?
>
> In a dreamless sleep or coma the Self is "turned off".
> When the brain awakes the Self returns once again.
starts to run again, like the processes on my pc when it's been brought out
of sleep mode
> At least the Self experiences itself as returning
> again because it has a episodic memory system.
>
>
> That Self can access memories of previous brain states
> which included itself as being present.
yes, brain priocesses communicate with each other.
news:d2bb216a-5343-4ce8...@tu6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> What happens after we die can be answered if we
> understand what we are before we die.
>
> So we don't have to wait until we die to answer
> the question. And even if we "found ourselves in
> heaven or hell" after death it wouldn't prove
> life after death only that whatever appeared in
> heaven or hell had the memory of someone who
> once lived. So you will not find out for sure
> if you (the now you in heaven or hell) really
> existed once before after death.
>
>
> All the evidence is that we are a brain process.
taking 'we' to mean the human animal's idea of itself, I agree.
> understand what we are before we die.
>
> So we don't have to wait until we die to answer
> the question. And even if we "found ourselves in
> heaven or hell" after death it wouldn't prove
> life after death only that whatever appeared in
> heaven or hell had the memory of someone who
> once lived. So you will not find out for sure
> if you (the now you in heaven or hell) really
> existed once before after death.
>
>
> All the evidence is that we are a brain process.
>
> The brain creates a model of its environment and
> that includes a model of itself both as a physical
> entity and as a process creating that model.
>
> The brain is continually changing so what is it
> that continues while the brain is intact that can
> be called the Self.
>
> In a dreamless sleep or coma the Self is "turned off".
> When the brain awakes the Self returns once again.
of sleep mode
> At least the Self experiences itself as returning
> again because it has a episodic memory system.
>
>
> That Self can access memories of previous brain states
> which included itself as being present.
Arindam Banerjee
Jul 9, 2012, 10:07:09 AM7/9/12
to
On Jul 9, 10:36 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 9:22 pm, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 9, 8:51 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 9, 8:07 pm, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 9, 10:52 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > All the evidence is that we are a brain process.
>
> > > > We perceive through our brains, yes. The brain is thus a part of us,
> > > > not the other way around.
>
> > > And what do you imagine the "we" is in, "we perceive through our
> > > brains"??
>
> > We meaning not just I, but other entities we perceive through our
> > senses and their actions and reactions process by our brains, to be as
> > conscious as ourselves, in this phase between our own birth and our
> > own death. The mirror also provides a view of our own bodies, and if
> > we do some kind of advanced scanning of our heads, we can get a
> > picture of our brain. Which proves that the brain is a part of our
> > body.
>
> > > Physically all that exists is a brain.
>
> > Apart from a brain, there are other aspects in the physical self -
> > skull, skeleton, blood, heart... etc
>
> Sure and the rest of the self is required for the brain to function
> but the Self, the "I", is in my view a brain function.
But nobody understands how the brain works. At least so my daughter
> On Jul 9, 9:22 pm, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 9, 8:51 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 9, 8:07 pm, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 9, 10:52 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > All the evidence is that we are a brain process.
>
> > > > We perceive through our brains, yes. The brain is thus a part of us,
> > > > not the other way around.
>
> > > And what do you imagine the "we" is in, "we perceive through our
> > > brains"??
>
> > We meaning not just I, but other entities we perceive through our
> > senses and their actions and reactions process by our brains, to be as
> > conscious as ourselves, in this phase between our own birth and our
> > own death. The mirror also provides a view of our own bodies, and if
> > we do some kind of advanced scanning of our heads, we can get a
> > picture of our brain. Which proves that the brain is a part of our
> > body.
>
> > > Physically all that exists is a brain.
>
> > Apart from a brain, there are other aspects in the physical self -
> > skull, skeleton, blood, heart... etc
>
> Sure and the rest of the self is required for the brain to function
> but the Self, the "I", is in my view a brain function.
says, we really know nothing about the brain for sure, except that the
brains of rats function like humans so rats are experimented upon,
with whatever results. She was working in one of the most prestigious
brain research labs in the world, on stress issues. One thing their
group did do, though, was to make a 3D model of the brain showing
which parts relate to which functions. While interesting, it does not
show how exactly the brain relates to the Self, Higher Order
functions, emotions, etc.
Then again, the link between the brain and whatever the senses do not
perceive, is not known so we cannot know about what the whatever
sensors we possess do not sense.
What you
> consider part of yourself is actually determined by the brain.
> A stroke can result in the brain rejecting an arm as part of the "I".
> There are also techniques to make the brain take on inanimate objects
> as part of the "I". Organ donation assumes the brain death, in other
> words the belief the "I" will not take place in that particular brain
> ever again. Without the brain there is no "I", no feeling thinking
> personhood. IMHO.
Our brain is the link to Higher Order existences, through various
abstractions (that being abstract have no physical existence as
matter, but are obvious to various people to various degrees) such as
life, aura, emotion, mind, spirit, and soul. Other organs have no
such link.
> > > Think of characters in a computer game. Physically all that exists is
> > > the computer running a program.
>
> > If you are implying that we are all figments of a huge ongoing drama
> > played for the enjoyment or interest or egos of very superior entities
> > (call them gods or whatever), then still that does not rule out the
> > fact that in our own brief roles we have more than just a brain.
>
> No I am not suggesting we are the playthings of gods. I am suggesting
> the "I", that thinking feeling experiencing person you feel yourself
> to be is a process taking place in the brain.
brain entities.
>
> > Admitted that the brain is very important, that it is our link to the
> > gods who are watching the drama, still it is not all that is - for it
> > also needs the support of other organs to exist!
>
> No I don't imagine any link to any gods. My beliefs are evidence
> based.
You can believe what you like. I have evidence that brains are not
> > Admitted that the brain is very important, that it is our link to the
> > gods who are watching the drama, still it is not all that is - for it
> > also needs the support of other organs to exist!
>
> No I don't imagine any link to any gods. My beliefs are evidence
> based.
everything as they are not self-subisting, and that is my point. A
very obvious one, I admit.
> > Like in the computer we don't just have memory and cpu, we also have
> > peripherals, displays, I/O, applications, controls, comms, etc etc.
> > So the proper analogy is brain::body to memory+CPU::computer.
>
> But they are not part of the content of the program they are the means
> by which the program is realised. The content of a program is its data
> not the physical components that enable the storing of the data.
concept without any hardware support.
> The same is true for us. All that exists is a brain.
itself. It needs a body for support, and that body requires other
bodies for support.
All that is
> taking
> place is neurons sending and processing information.
so? It needs other than brain existences for doing that, and that
means that there is more to existence than just the brain. At any
rate, that is what my brain says!
But that
> information
> isn't about the neurons even though the neurons are the things doing
> it.
does, how it does all that is a marvel we do not know.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Arindam Banerjee
Jul 9, 2012, 10:09:25 AM7/9/12
to
> Hope this helps
> Zinnic- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Arindam Banerjee
Jul 9, 2012, 10:10:33 AM7/9/12
to
> @l6g2000pbf.googlegroups.com>, banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com says...
>
> > We perceive through our brains, yes.
>
> We perceive through our entire life.
We perceive throughout our entire life.
> > We perceive through our brains, yes.
>
> We perceive through our entire life.
Dare
Jul 9, 2012, 10:18:47 AM7/9/12
to
"casey" <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:d2bb216a-5343-4ce8...@tu6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> What happens after we die can be answered if we
> understand what we are before we die.
>
> So we don't have to wait until we die to answer
> the question. And even if we "found ourselves in
> heaven or hell" after death it wouldn't prove
> life after death only that whatever appeared in
> heaven or hell had the memory of someone who
> once lived. So you will not find out for sure
> if you (the now you in heaven or hell) really
> existed once before after death.
Does this say that memory survives death...
> understand what we are before we die.
>
> So we don't have to wait until we die to answer
> the question. And even if we "found ourselves in
> heaven or hell" after death it wouldn't prove
> life after death only that whatever appeared in
> heaven or hell had the memory of someone who
> once lived. So you will not find out for sure
> if you (the now you in heaven or hell) really
> existed once before after death.
or have I misunderstood?
How could memory survive without
the brain processes that maintain it?
>
> All the evidence is that we are a brain process.
>
>
> The brain creates a model of its environment and
> that includes a model of itself both as a physical
> entity and as a process creating that model.
>
>
> The brain is continually changing so what is it
> that continues while the brain is intact that can
> be called the Self.
>
>
> In a dreamless sleep or coma the Self is "turned off".
> When the brain awakes the Self returns once again.
> At least the Self experiences itself as returning
> again because it has a episodic memory system.
>
>
> That Self can access memories of previous brain states
> which included itself as being present.
>
>
> In reality you only experience yourself as the same
> person throughout your life because at any give time
> you have access to a episodic memory. Without it
> you would have to say you have just "woken up" which
> is exactly what subjects with certain brain damage
> do say. You would deny that you existed as an awake
> person 10 minutes ago when in fact you did exist as
> an awake person.
>
>
> It is this NOW memory of a past and predicted future
> that makes up the continual and yet changing Self.
Why is there fear of death?
Zinnic
Jul 9, 2012, 10:35:36 AM7/9/12
to
On Jul 9, 9:09 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
A misplaced intellectual arrogance and conceit prohibit you from
accepting even a minor correction. Your analogy is as inappropriate as
was your "correction" of the river analogy in that "old" text you
cited. When will you learn that It did not take your imagined "genius"
to inform everyone else that the Earth is in relative motion.
Hope this helps.
Zinnic
accepting even a minor correction. Your analogy is as inappropriate as
was your "correction" of the river analogy in that "old" text you
cited. When will you learn that It did not take your imagined "genius"
to inform everyone else that the Earth is in relative motion.
Hope this helps.
Zinnic
Dare
Jul 9, 2012, 10:42:13 AM7/9/12
to
"casey" <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:d2bb216a-5343-4ce8...@tu6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> What happens after we die can be answered if we
> understand what we are before we die.
>
> So we don't have to wait until we die to answer
> the question.
What is the answer?
> understand what we are before we die.
>
> So we don't have to wait until we die to answer
> the question.
Zinnic
Jul 9, 2012, 10:44:33 AM7/9/12
to
On Jul 9, 9:42 am, "Dare" <clydad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "casey" <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in messagenews:d2bb216a-5343-4ce8...@tu6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> "casey" <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in messagenews:d2bb216a-5343-4ce8...@tu6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> > What happens after we die can be answered if we
> > understand what we are before we die.
>
> > So we don't have to wait until we die to answer
> > the question.
>
> What is the answer?
We will not be alive?
> > understand what we are before we die.
>
> > So we don't have to wait until we die to answer
> > the question.
>
> What is the answer?
tooly
Jul 9, 2012, 11:20:31 AM7/9/12
to
1. time is a variable.
2. time is probably infinite.
3. we focus upon the future to explain a 'hereafter', but perhaps it is more enlightening to think of a 'past' where time is infinite. From this purview, BEING itself takes on a more explanatory conveyance about what it 'might' all be about. If time is infinite, and BEING exists [which we know it does by our own existence], then that tells me we exist NOW by way of some mechanization for 'betterment' or 'improvement'.
One of those 'constraints' Sir talks about is our capacity to see time in it's entirety. We think in quantums...explicit measures, by which, billions and trillions of years are 'a lot'...and in our 'passing', that we may not re-exist for at least billions and trillions of years, a conceptualization of 'non-existence'...ergo, we die, become worm food, and...that's it [the rationalist point of view anyway].
The movie 'Inception' [I'm big into movie fare]...called attention to the idea that time, though a measurable parameter, remains more a matter of perception. In the movie, dreamers while asleep, could experience multiples of time upon each deeper level of a 'dreamworld', whereupon, what might take place in what we deem the 'real world' would be only a few minutes or seconds, could equate to an EXPERIENCE of decades or more in the deeper sleeping dreamworlds.
Another movie, 'Contact' also touches upon this idea of time compression, when our heroine character played by Jodie Foster, is transported through some sort of wormhole created by the alien machine we were given instructions to build through distant radio signals, all in a few nanoseconds that was nondetectable in 'normal time' as people watched on.
What we 'experience' as 'real time' in our world, could be nearly instantaneous on another plane, or what we experience as instantaneous, could exist as eons by some other consciousness, existent upon a different 'time scale'.
One thing I'm pretty sure of is that when we die, and consciousness ceases, TIME itself STOPS...or 'no longer exists'...becomes a 'null and void' [what I've argued before a something very different than zero, or nothingness]. NULL and VOIDS 'don't exist'...are 'skipped over'.
These are just 'open doors' mind you; just 'questions' that, by my thinking, leaves 'enough' room to drive a semi through as to possibility. Those that say we are ONLY wormfood after death, and that NOTHING ever exists again [by that consciousness we are now], are 'shallow' in substance IMHO. They are not only limited by perception, by also by imagination.
One other idea that puzzles me as to possibility...are coral reefs. Coral reefs, I've read, are single animals, comprised of zillions of 'polyps'. When I 'dream' it seems quite mysterious to me how my persona remains the "ME" I know I am when awake, yet, can be many different embodiments...even to change gender. How can "I" create so instantaneously, complete worlds where I've never seen or been before, and become totally 'different' people [while remains "ME"]...unless....well, one tries to find possible explanations.
One that at least seems 'explanatory' [even if not plausible] is that when asleep, one's consciousness 'might' drift around in this plasmic-like envelope of amassed consciousness, much like a 'coral reef', where we might see from the consciousnes of 'others' while keeping intact whatever it is that defines SELF as the ME we know and love [or hate, ha].
Kind of a wild idea, granted. But how is it that I can create such intricate worlds I've never seen or experienced before in my sleep?
Still...brains are brains, and to the rationalist in all of us, I suppose such notions remain 'hard sells'...and it remains, we find it hard to believe more than we simply die and melt back into the environment [after death]. We...END.
Of course, if that is the truth of it, then the next question might be 'why' is that so disturbing to us?
Doug Freyburger
Jul 9, 2012, 12:47:43 PM7/9/12
to
casey wrote:
>
> What happens after we die can be answered if we
> understand what we are before we die.
Maybe. That is as large a leap of faith as discussions that assume an
>
> What happens after we die can be answered if we
> understand what we are before we die.
afterlife exist.
> All the evidence is that we are a brain process.
to accept. Very different from all of the evidence.
> In a dreamless sleep or coma the Self is "turned off".
> When the brain awakes the Self returns once again.
> At least the Self experiences itself as returning
> again because it has a episodic memory system.
people in comas heal differently when loved ones are present show that
this statement is incomplete.
> That Self can access memories of previous brain states
> which included itself as being present.
Some take those as the best evidence of an afterlife. Some don't.
In one sense the existance of an afterlife is immaterial - There are
religions that work just fine without discussing an afterlife therefore
an afterlife is optional. The fact that some religions deal with an
afterlife fail to take that into account.
Immortalist
Jul 9, 2012, 1:44:38 PM7/9/12
to
On Jul 8, 5:52 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> What happens after we die can be answered if we
> understand what we are before we die.
>
The evidence we have supports the theory that we evolved from dead
> What happens after we die can be answered if we
> understand what we are before we die.
>
matter and our self is just the functions and processes of the brain
over a stretch of time.
Before you existed it must have been possible that particular
functions and processes could happen and you could exist.
After you existed and died it is probably still possible that these
processes and functions could make you exist.
If it is possible to emulate these processes and functions then it is
likely that you could be resurrected if you could exist in the first
place.
Humans, aliens or gods could emulate these processes and functions.
Humans, aliens or gods could resurrect humans.
If there are no aliens and gods humans could resurrect themselves.
activities outside this range of activities would not be that self.
This range of neural activities need not necessarily include any
memory at all and still this self will happen and be experienced as
that particular self out of all possible selves neural activities can
emulate.
> It is this NOW memory of a past and predicted future
> that makes up the continual and yet changing Self.
different combination of neural activities than those involved in
memories. Though memories may be required to note that this self
exists at different times, memories are not needed for this self to be
experienced in the temporal sequence called NOW.
Immortalist
Jul 9, 2012, 1:59:21 PM7/9/12
to
On Jul 9, 7:07 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
Please pick any 100 of these 1000s of known brain disorders and
malfunctions and explain how we don't know what those parts of the
brain are doing.
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/disorder_index.htm
A neurological disorder is any disorder of the body's nervous system.
Structural, biochemical or electrical abnormalities in the brain,
spinal cord or other nerves can result in a range of symptoms.
Examples of symptoms include paralysis, muscle weakness, poor
coordination, loss of sensation, seizures, confusion, pain and altered
levels of consciousness.There are many recognized neurological
disorders, some relatively common, but many rare. They may be assessed
by neurological examination, and studied and treated within the
specialities of neurology and clinical neuropsychology. Interventions
for neurological disorders include preventative measures, lifestyle
changes, physiotherapy or other therapy, neurorehabilitation, pain
management, medication, or operations performed by neurosurgeons. The
World Health Organization estimated in 2006 that neurological
disorders and their sequelae (direct consequences) affect as many as
one billion people worldwide, and identified health inequalities and
social stigma/discrimination as major factors contributing to the
associated disability and suffering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurological_disorder
> At least so my daughter
> says,
...LOL
malfunctions and explain how we don't know what those parts of the
brain are doing.
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/disorder_index.htm
A neurological disorder is any disorder of the body's nervous system.
Structural, biochemical or electrical abnormalities in the brain,
spinal cord or other nerves can result in a range of symptoms.
Examples of symptoms include paralysis, muscle weakness, poor
coordination, loss of sensation, seizures, confusion, pain and altered
levels of consciousness.There are many recognized neurological
disorders, some relatively common, but many rare. They may be assessed
by neurological examination, and studied and treated within the
specialities of neurology and clinical neuropsychology. Interventions
for neurological disorders include preventative measures, lifestyle
changes, physiotherapy or other therapy, neurorehabilitation, pain
management, medication, or operations performed by neurosurgeons. The
World Health Organization estimated in 2006 that neurological
disorders and their sequelae (direct consequences) affect as many as
one billion people worldwide, and identified health inequalities and
social stigma/discrimination as major factors contributing to the
associated disability and suffering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurological_disorder
> At least so my daughter
> says,
Hezz Hattuck
Jul 9, 2012, 2:38:08 PM7/9/12
to
Fred M. McNeill <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in
news:9kekv7drbeebn9ng0...@4ax.com:
Yes, a consequence of an existence only having manifested content to it or
a "what it's like to be" when such is represented, mapped or given
organization by phenomena generated by conscious processes, is that it
helps keep alive skepticism of or denial of an existence that is
independent of perception and thought / inference. Or spawns and maintains
the latter to begin with. I.E., "what is the evidence of these *processes*
and the matter engaging in them, as in not consisting of evidence reliant
upon the very item (experience, intellection) that it demotes to inferior
existential status, non-fundamental and illusionary [not what it seems])".
The urges of parsimony accordingly drive these individuals to dispense
with such storytellings that posit a realm of being which is invisible in
its conventional widespread condition, regarding it akin to occult and
theological myths.
Appeals to reason and cause, like the phenomenal requiring something
*aphenomenal* to engender it, falls on deaf ears since - again- proper
rules for thinking (logic games) are just part of the emergent invention
of the *invisible stuff*, phenomenal experience a chance-evolved product
which could be just as much be deceptive as truthful, or piss-poor
neither, since there is no disolving back into this ultimate or primary
aphenomenal existence except before life and after death. And "Lo, what
lies before and after is posited to be nothingness, or absence of even a
conceptual classification of that!". Ergo, the skeptic / nihilist, or
radical phenomenalist laughs: "Apart from any practical pretense in some
corners of research, what need have we to retain literal belief in this
aloof, aphenomenal fetish! Toss it in the rubbish pit with the old gods
and hidden mystic forces!".
news:9kekv7drbeebn9ng0...@4ax.com:
a "what it's like to be" when such is represented, mapped or given
organization by phenomena generated by conscious processes, is that it
helps keep alive skepticism of or denial of an existence that is
independent of perception and thought / inference. Or spawns and maintains
the latter to begin with. I.E., "what is the evidence of these *processes*
and the matter engaging in them, as in not consisting of evidence reliant
upon the very item (experience, intellection) that it demotes to inferior
existential status, non-fundamental and illusionary [not what it seems])".
The urges of parsimony accordingly drive these individuals to dispense
with such storytellings that posit a realm of being which is invisible in
its conventional widespread condition, regarding it akin to occult and
theological myths.
Appeals to reason and cause, like the phenomenal requiring something
*aphenomenal* to engender it, falls on deaf ears since - again- proper
rules for thinking (logic games) are just part of the emergent invention
of the *invisible stuff*, phenomenal experience a chance-evolved product
which could be just as much be deceptive as truthful, or piss-poor
neither, since there is no disolving back into this ultimate or primary
aphenomenal existence except before life and after death. And "Lo, what
lies before and after is posited to be nothingness, or absence of even a
conceptual classification of that!". Ergo, the skeptic / nihilist, or
radical phenomenalist laughs: "Apart from any practical pretense in some
corners of research, what need have we to retain literal belief in this
aloof, aphenomenal fetish! Toss it in the rubbish pit with the old gods
and hidden mystic forces!".
casey
Jul 9, 2012, 4:09:47 PM7/9/12
to
On Jul 9, 10:47 pm, "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
> [...]
interested in one that could be verified in the same
way we can verify that the world is round or that the
world is made up of atoms.
> [...]
> > It is this NOW memory of a past and predicted future
> > that makes up the continual and yet changing Self.
>
> What if time is all existent. Then this would serve as a super-memory in
> that in way everything that ever existed still does and perhaps will always,
> including all these moments that make up the self.
We can make up all sorts of what if stories but I was
> > that makes up the continual and yet changing Self.
>
> What if time is all existent. Then this would serve as a super-memory in
> that in way everything that ever existed still does and perhaps will always,
> including all these moments that make up the self.
interested in one that could be verified in the same
way we can verify that the world is round or that the
world is made up of atoms.
casey
Jul 9, 2012, 4:29:25 PM7/9/12
to
> @tu6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au says...
remember the past and predict the future. It evolved as a
body controller to enhance the reproductive success of the
body.
> "All the
> evidence" should read "All the evidence I choose or was taught to
> believe in". All the evidence is, in fact, we are a human organism.
> A brain alone can not process anything including a Self or itself. A
> brain organ can 'create' a model like a heart can 'give' love or legs
> can run fast.
Lost me there.
> > The brain creates a model of its environment
>
> which apparently does not include a creation of inside a cranial cavity
> or floating in fluid.
It has no direct sensory input to make such a model. We infer
that we exist as a brain process by physically manipulating
the brain and observing the subjective experiences that follow.
The brain can be tricked into thinking it has a part which
is just a rubber glove or even a table top by viewing the
object while the hand is hidden and being stroked with a
visual input of the rubber glove or table top being stroked
at the same time.
> Self seems strangely like a computer avatar but who also has access to
> the computer.
The Self doesn't have access to the physical neurons that make it nor
does a computer program have access to the logic gates that make it.
That is is why the soul was thought to reside in the heart or
elsewhere.
We can only now infer that it exists in the brain by manipulating the
brain
and observing the effects it has on the Self. It also shows the soul
as
something separate from the brain is an illusion.
> So the self is or is not created by the brain? The self is part of an
> environment? Or is the brain? And how it is possible for self
> experiencing only itself.... ?
The Self is part of the environment model made by the brain. The
brain's
program "views" (experiences) the model as if it was some kind of Self
floating inside the the body.
>
> > All the evidence is that we are a brain process.
>
> > The brain creates a model ...
>
> No, all the evidence is not that we are a brain process.
A process which creates a model of its environment so it can
> > All the evidence is that we are a brain process.
>
> > The brain creates a model ...
>
> No, all the evidence is not that we are a brain process.
remember the past and predict the future. It evolved as a
body controller to enhance the reproductive success of the
body.
> "All the
> evidence" should read "All the evidence I choose or was taught to
> believe in". All the evidence is, in fact, we are a human organism.
> A brain alone can not process anything including a Self or itself. A
> brain organ can 'create' a model like a heart can 'give' love or legs
> can run fast.
> > The brain creates a model of its environment
>
> which apparently does not include a creation of inside a cranial cavity
> or floating in fluid.
that we exist as a brain process by physically manipulating
the brain and observing the subjective experiences that follow.
The brain can be tricked into thinking it has a part which
is just a rubber glove or even a table top by viewing the
object while the hand is hidden and being stroked with a
visual input of the rubber glove or table top being stroked
at the same time.
> Self seems strangely like a computer avatar but who also has access to
> the computer.
does a computer program have access to the logic gates that make it.
That is is why the soul was thought to reside in the heart or
elsewhere.
We can only now infer that it exists in the brain by manipulating the
brain
and observing the effects it has on the Self. It also shows the soul
as
something separate from the brain is an illusion.
> So the self is or is not created by the brain? The self is part of an
> environment? Or is the brain? And how it is possible for self
> experiencing only itself.... ?
brain's
program "views" (experiences) the model as if it was some kind of Self
floating inside the the body.
Giga
Jul 9, 2012, 4:41:28 PM7/9/12
to
"Zinnic" <zinni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a34254c3-0514-41d0...@f14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Giga
Jul 9, 2012, 4:42:31 PM7/9/12
to
news:5fdeb150-2800-4bb4...@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
=Physicists are working on this, so we will see. It would not surprise me if
they find that time is all existent.
they find that time is all existent.
casey
Jul 9, 2012, 4:43:13 PM7/9/12
to
On Jul 10, 12:07 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
to give us this biosphere of which we are transient parts.
Our personal life however, as an experiencing entity, involves the
brain.
Our heart, lung, liver and so on may support the brain but the brain
itself does the experiencing of colors, feeling, thoughts and so on.
> True. The brain cells are the hardware for all the decisions the brain
> does, how it does all that is a marvel we do not know.
And when we do know we will know what happens after death.
Unlike a religious explanation of life after death science
has the potential to prove exactly what happens after death
by telling us exactly what we are as a brain process.
wrote:
> On Jul 9, 10:36 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> [...]
> Any program is useless without a hardware to support it. It is just a
> concept without any hardware support.
>
> > The same is true for us. All that exists is a brain.
>
> I am saying that is a wrong concept, as the brain cannot exist by
> itself. It needs a body for support, and that body requires other
> bodies for support.
Sure and we also need the Universe and its constraints to exist
> concept without any hardware support.
>
> > The same is true for us. All that exists is a brain.
>
> I am saying that is a wrong concept, as the brain cannot exist by
> itself. It needs a body for support, and that body requires other
> bodies for support.
to give us this biosphere of which we are transient parts.
Our personal life however, as an experiencing entity, involves the
brain.
Our heart, lung, liver and so on may support the brain but the brain
itself does the experiencing of colors, feeling, thoughts and so on.
> True. The brain cells are the hardware for all the decisions the brain
> does, how it does all that is a marvel we do not know.
Unlike a religious explanation of life after death science
has the potential to prove exactly what happens after death
by telling us exactly what we are as a brain process.
casey
Jul 9, 2012, 4:51:07 PM7/9/12
to
On Jul 10, 12:18 am, "Dare" <clydad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "casey" <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in messagenews:d2bb216a-5343-4ce8...@tu6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
survive death, and I don't see how as for me it
exists as physical patterns in a brain, you still
wouldn't know by the possession of such memories
that they were made by the current you.
Self identity is a tricky issue and a key issue.
Are you the same person that existed a second ago
or do you just have their memories? Remember the
physical matter of the body flows into and out of
the body just as air flows into and out of a
tornado all that really exists is an ever changing
pattern over time.
> > It is this NOW memory of a past and predicted future
> > that makes up the continual and yet changing Self.
>
> "I" am also contiually dying as the next I continually emerges?
>
> Why is there fear of death?
The control system (brain) of bodies that didn't fear death
did not survive long enough or often enough for a successful
reproduction of that kind of control system.
> "casey" <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in messagenews:d2bb216a-5343-4ce8...@tu6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> > What happens after we die can be answered if we
> > understand what we are before we die.
>
> > So we don't have to wait until we die to answer
> > the question. And even if we "found ourselves in
> > heaven or hell" after death it wouldn't prove
> > life after death only that whatever appeared in
> > heaven or hell had the memory of someone who
> > once lived. So you will not find out for sure
> > if you (the now you in heaven or hell) really
> > existed once before after death.
>
> Does this say that memory survives death...
> or have I misunderstood?
> How could memory survive without
> the brain processes that maintain it?
It was just saying if you think that memory could
> > understand what we are before we die.
>
> > So we don't have to wait until we die to answer
> > the question. And even if we "found ourselves in
> > heaven or hell" after death it wouldn't prove
> > life after death only that whatever appeared in
> > heaven or hell had the memory of someone who
> > once lived. So you will not find out for sure
> > if you (the now you in heaven or hell) really
> > existed once before after death.
>
> Does this say that memory survives death...
> or have I misunderstood?
> How could memory survive without
> the brain processes that maintain it?
survive death, and I don't see how as for me it
exists as physical patterns in a brain, you still
wouldn't know by the possession of such memories
that they were made by the current you.
Self identity is a tricky issue and a key issue.
Are you the same person that existed a second ago
or do you just have their memories? Remember the
physical matter of the body flows into and out of
the body just as air flows into and out of a
tornado all that really exists is an ever changing
pattern over time.
> > It is this NOW memory of a past and predicted future
> > that makes up the continual and yet changing Self.
>
> "I" am also contiually dying as the next I continually emerges?
>
> Why is there fear of death?
did not survive long enough or often enough for a successful
reproduction of that kind of control system.
casey
Jul 9, 2012, 4:52:25 PM7/9/12
to
On Jul 10, 12:42 am, "Dare" <clydad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "casey" <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in messagenews:d2bb216a-5343-4ce8...@tu6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> "casey" <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in messagenews:d2bb216a-5343-4ce8...@tu6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> > What happens after we die can be answered if we
> > understand what we are before we die.
>
> > So we don't have to wait until we die to answer
> > the question.
>
> What is the answer?
Work in progress :)
> > understand what we are before we die.
>
> > So we don't have to wait until we die to answer
> > the question.
>
> What is the answer?
casey
Jul 9, 2012, 5:12:23 PM7/9/12
to
On Jul 10, 3:44 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 5:52 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> [...]
> On Jul 8, 5:52 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > It is this NOW memory of a past and predicted future
> > that makes up the continual and yet changing Self.
>
> Not true since the neural activities that are the self may be a
> different combination of neural activities than those involved in
> memories. Though memories may be required to note that this self
> exists at different times, memories are not needed for this self
> to be experienced in the temporal sequence called NOW.
I experience consciousness in a "moving" temporal window on the time
> > that makes up the continual and yet changing Self.
>
> Not true since the neural activities that are the self may be a
> different combination of neural activities than those involved in
> memories. Though memories may be required to note that this self
> exists at different times, memories are not needed for this self
> to be experienced in the temporal sequence called NOW.
axis.
Experiments have been done to measure temporal windows of the brain.
casey
Jul 9, 2012, 5:07:31 PM7/9/12
to
On Jul 10, 2:47 am, Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> casey wrote:
>
> > What happens after we die can be answered if we
> > understand what we are before we die.
>
> Maybe. That is as large a leap of faith as
> discussions that assume an afterlife exist.
The success that science has had in explaining things, which
> casey wrote:
>
> > What happens after we die can be answered if we
> > understand what we are before we die.
>
> Maybe. That is as large a leap of faith as
> discussions that assume an afterlife exist.
religion (made up stuff) has always got wrong, gives me such
a faith.
I don't assume an afterlife exists. I suspect this
pattern I call myself and which is always changing
will vanish like a whirlpool in a fast flowing river.
> > All the evidence is that we are a brain process.
>
> This was addressed in another post. All of the evidence you have chosen
> to accept. Very different from all of the evidence.
> > In a dreamless sleep or coma the Self is "turned off".
> > When the brain awakes the Self returns once again.
> > At least the Self experiences itself as returning
> > again because it has a episodic memory system.
>
> That alarm clock work prove that this statement is incomplete. That
> people in comas heal differently when loved ones are present show that
> this statement is incomplete.
Without PET scan evidence to show someone in a coma was
in a continual coma or that no unconscious process was
processing the presence of relatives ...
The resolution of these questions requires a full understanding
of what exactly is happening in the brain when we are conscious.
casey
Jul 9, 2012, 4:32:38 PM7/9/12
to
On Jul 9, 11:52 pm, "Albert Tatlock" <tatl...@rovers.com> wrote:
> [...]
self it is your particular Self.
> [...]
>
> why have you capitalised 'self'?
The same reason you capitalise your name. It is not just any
> why have you capitalised 'self'?
self it is your particular Self.
Albert Tatlock
Jul 9, 2012, 6:15:19 PM7/9/12
to
"casey" <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:80e7a354-929b-4b1c...@wt8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
learned to write. like i learned to capitalise the first person pronoun
'i'. and like i learned to capitalise the first word of every sentence.
and like i learned never to start a sentence with a conjunction.
(conjunctions are also words you should never end a sentence with.)
Jack McKinney
Jul 9, 2012, 7:59:15 PM7/9/12
to
For those interested, read what some of the best of science are
saying...
http://community.webtv.net/SAMEJACK/DOESCONSCIOUSNESS
saying...
http://community.webtv.net/SAMEJACK/DOESCONSCIOUSNESS
casey
Jul 9, 2012, 8:21:02 PM7/9/12
to
"When the heart stops beating no blood gets to your brain,
and after about 10 seconds brain activity ceases. That is
normally the official death point. Yet around 10% or 20%
of people who are brought back to life from that point,
which may be a few minutes or over an hour, report having
consciousness."
A report of having consciousness is not proof they did.
And what happened to the other 80% to 90%? Did they fail
to have life after death? Or were their brains unable to
conjure up the memory (false?) of being alive when dead?
Out of body experiences can be induced with sensory deprivation
techniques but the subjects have never provided testable evidence
that they were experiencing any real world events.
Arindam Banerjee
Jul 9, 2012, 8:50:27 PM7/9/12
to
are created by the evil in society so in a good healthy society they
should not exist at all.
The biggest brain disorder is to believe in nonsense such as
einsteinism, etc. and its consequences. This is the impact of social
conditioning, which is a brain function/
To lie and then try to say that the lie is truth, is the biggest brain
disorder by far.
Evil is the cause of it, for personal or group gains. Fooling people,
trickery etc. are
all brain functions, in the disorderly sense. But then, the need for
differentiation for order has to lead to duality; the notion of order
cannot exist without duality; thus
the need for liars! When lying gets too much, the reaction for truth
often leads to complete chaos - where both truth and lie are
irrelevant.
When people tell the truth, and believe in the powers of truth and
goodness, they will not have any brain disorder. However the boredom
from such goodness will
again tend some to lying, and the cycle repeats.
Of course, there are drugs and stuff that affect the brain. Poking
around, also shows some causality effects. But that is far from
knowing what the brain is all about.
Brain disorders are a social outcome, when people are trapped between
the opposites and the brain does not know how to function.
When there are no good ideals
or role models, when only hedonism and money matter, the good in the
human condition gets choked and the brain suffers.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
c(V)=c+V
e=0.5mVVN(N-k)
Arindam Banerjee
Jul 9, 2012, 8:57:03 PM7/9/12
to
On Jul 10, 6:43 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 12:07 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 10:36 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > [...]
> > Any program is useless without a hardware to support it. It is just a
> > concept without any hardware support.
>
> > > The same is true for us. All that exists is a brain.
>
> > I am saying that is a wrong concept, as the brain cannot exist by
> > itself. It needs a body for support, and that body requires other
> > bodies for support.
>
> Sure and we also need the Universe and its constraints to exist
> to give us this biosphere of which we are transient parts.
Yes.
> On Jul 10, 12:07 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 10:36 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > [...]
> > Any program is useless without a hardware to support it. It is just a
> > concept without any hardware support.
>
> > > The same is true for us. All that exists is a brain.
>
> > I am saying that is a wrong concept, as the brain cannot exist by
> > itself. It needs a body for support, and that body requires other
> > bodies for support.
>
> Sure and we also need the Universe and its constraints to exist
> to give us this biosphere of which we are transient parts.
>
> Our personal life however, as an experiencing entity, involves the
> brain.
> Our heart, lung, liver and so on may support the brain but the brain
> itself does the experiencing of colors, feeling, thoughts and so on.
>
> > True. The brain cells are the hardware for all the decisions the brain
> > does, how it does all that is a marvel we do not know.
>
> And when we do know we will know what happens after death.
Many think they do know what happens after death, and before, and so
> Our personal life however, as an experiencing entity, involves the
> brain.
> Our heart, lung, liver and so on may support the brain but the brain
> itself does the experiencing of colors, feeling, thoughts and so on.
>
> > True. The brain cells are the hardware for all the decisions the brain
> > does, how it does all that is a marvel we do not know.
>
> And when we do know we will know what happens after death.
on. But that is a metaphysical position, which is beyond the scope of
scientific proof in the
narrowest sense. I mean, the ouija board does work for many, but they
won't give it a scientific status for whatever reasons. In the 19th
century it was very
fashionable, but in the 20th century and now that fashion has gone
underground.
> Unlike a religious explanation of life after death science
> has the potential to prove exactly what happens after death
> by telling us exactly what we are as a brain process.
assuming in the metaphysical sense that we are all ghosts/spirits/
souls in flesh, and return to that
state after our death. The spiritual world is very rich in
imagination and is the source of creativity, which has very positive
impact upon our mortal existences.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Jul 9, 2012, 9:22:36 PM7/9/12
to
In article
<87b83fb2-757e-4225...@y3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> posted:
>
> On Jul 10, 3:59=A0am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 7:07=A0am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 9, 10:36=A0pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jul 9, 9:22=A0pm, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Jul 9, 8:51=A0pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On Jul 9, 8:07=A0pm, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com=
> c(V)=3Dc+V
> e=3D0.5mVVN(N-k)
o Goodness - Hinduism Today Magazine - December, 1994
http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=3218
o A Look at Evil - Hinduism Today Magazine - May, 1992
http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=930
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
<87b83fb2-757e-4225...@y3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> posted:
>
> On Jul 10, 3:59=A0am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 7:07=A0am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 9, 10:36=A0pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jul 9, 9:22=A0pm, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Jul 9, 8:51=A0pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On Jul 9, 8:07=A0pm, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com=
> >
> > > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Jul 9, 10:52=A0am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > All the evidence is that we are a brain process.
> >
> > > > > > > We perceive through our brains, yes. =A0The brain is thus a part
> > > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Jul 9, 10:52=A0am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > All the evidence is that we are a brain process.
> >
> > of us,
> > > > > > > not the other way around.
> >
> > > > > > And what do you imagine the "we" is in, "we perceive through our
> > > > > > brains"??
> >
> > > > > We meaning not just I, but other entities we perceive through our
> > > > > senses and their actions and reactions process by our brains, to be=
> > > > > > > not the other way around.
> >
> > > > > > And what do you imagine the "we" is in, "we perceive through our
> > > > > > brains"??
> >
> > > > > We meaning not just I, but other entities we perceive through our
> as
> > > > > conscious as ourselves, in this phase between our own birth and our
> > > > > own death. =A0The mirror also provides a view of our own bodies, an=
> > > > > conscious as ourselves, in this phase between our own birth and our
> d if
> > > > > we do some kind of advanced scanning of our heads, we can get a
> > > > > picture of our brain. =A0Which proves that the brain is a part of o=
> > > > > we do some kind of advanced scanning of our heads, we can get a
> e=3D0.5mVVN(N-k)
o Goodness - Hinduism Today Magazine - December, 1994
http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=3218
o A Look at Evil - Hinduism Today Magazine - May, 1992
http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=930
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
Albert Tatlock
Jul 10, 2012, 1:07:45 AM7/10/12
to
<use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
message news:20120709PMDfPB57@5hev...
message news:20120709PMDfPB57@5hev...
> In article
> <87b83fb2-757e-4225...@y3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> posted:
>>
> <87b83fb2-757e-4225...@y3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> posted:
>>
>> When there are no good ideals or role models, when only
>> hedonism and money matter, the good in the human
>> condition gets choked and the brain suffers.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Arindam Banerjee
>> c(V)=3Dc+V
>> e=3D0.5mVVN(N-k)
>
> o Goodness - Hinduism Today Magazine - December, 1994
>
> http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=3218
>
> o A Look at Evil - Hinduism Today Magazine - May, 1992
>
> http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=930
>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti
he said hedonism, not hinduism
>> hedonism and money matter, the good in the human
>> condition gets choked and the brain suffers.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Arindam Banerjee
>> c(V)=3Dc+V
>> e=3D0.5mVVN(N-k)
>
> o Goodness - Hinduism Today Magazine - December, 1994
>
> http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=3218
>
> o A Look at Evil - Hinduism Today Magazine - May, 1992
>
> http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=930
>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti
Arindam Banerjee
Jul 10, 2012, 5:21:43 AM7/10/12
to
anyway.
The intellectual arrogance and conceit are all yours.
I am a humble seeker of truth, and have no use for those like you who
turn truth to lie, and lie to truth, with insane, evil twisting of
words.
Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all
time, sole god among lotsa devils.
c(V)=c+V, as the Earth moves along with the MMI apparatus!
e=0.5mVVN(N-k) as the Sun has got a strong permanent magnetic field.
SAMEJACK MCKINNEY
Jul 10, 2012, 5:45:57 AM7/10/12
to
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012, 5:21pm (CDT-2) From: jgkj...@yahoo.com.au (casey)
wrote:
>> On Jul 10, 9:59 am, jak1...@webtv.net (Jack
>> McKinney) wrote:
>> For those interested, read what some of the
>> best of science are saying...
http://community.webtv.net/SAMEJACK/DOESCONSCIOUSNESS
> No science there just one conjecture:
> "When the heart stops beating no blood gets
> to your brain, and after about 10 seconds
> brain activity ceases. That is normally the
> official death point. Yet around 10% or 20% of
> people who are brought back to life from that
> point, which may be a few minutes or over an
> hour, report having consciousness."
> A report of having consciousness is not proof
> they did.
Like I said, those who might be interested in some of the latest science
on this subject, can read this article, and make use of it, in any way
that they can....
I guess all others can sit around and wait for proof, which probably
won't occur until all of the old materialists have died off; but even
this should occur in another 35 to 40 years...
So-called proof may have little or nothing to do with reality, and in
most cases is nothIng more than a consensus of opinion. Don't let a
consensus of opinion get in the way of your own enlightenment...BE YOUR
OWN MAN !
wrote:
>> On Jul 10, 9:59 am, jak1...@webtv.net (Jack
>> McKinney) wrote:
>> For those interested, read what some of the
>> best of science are saying...
http://community.webtv.net/SAMEJACK/DOESCONSCIOUSNESS
> No science there just one conjecture:
> "When the heart stops beating no blood gets
> to your brain, and after about 10 seconds
> brain activity ceases. That is normally the
> official death point. Yet around 10% or 20% of
> people who are brought back to life from that
> point, which may be a few minutes or over an
> hour, report having consciousness."
> A report of having consciousness is not proof
> they did.
on this subject, can read this article, and make use of it, in any way
that they can....
I guess all others can sit around and wait for proof, which probably
won't occur until all of the old materialists have died off; but even
this should occur in another 35 to 40 years...
So-called proof may have little or nothing to do with reality, and in
most cases is nothIng more than a consensus of opinion. Don't let a
consensus of opinion get in the way of your own enlightenment...BE YOUR
OWN MAN !
Dare
Jul 10, 2012, 11:04:21 AM7/10/12
to
when the past is experienced as happening in the now,
not perceived as a memory of what happened?
Am "I" the "then-self"?
Perhaps this kind of memory is similar to dreaming,
but is there a significant difference?
Immortalist
Jul 10, 2012, 2:45:47 PM7/10/12
to
On Jul 9, 5:50 pm, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
Then you are conceding the point to me, in an admission of humble
defeat, that you were wrong and humans do have some knowledge about
how the brain works and what it does?
> The biggest brain disorder is to believe in nonsense such as
> einsteinism, etc. and its consequences. This is the impact of social
> conditioning, which is a brain function/
>
Einstein?
defeat, that you were wrong and humans do have some knowledge about
how the brain works and what it does?
> The biggest brain disorder is to believe in nonsense such as
> einsteinism, etc. and its consequences. This is the impact of social
> conditioning, which is a brain function/
>
Arindam Banerjee
Jul 11, 2012, 12:22:11 AM7/11/12
to
> in an admission of humble
> defeat,
that you were wrong and humans do have some knowledge about
> how the brain works and what it does?
the brain of the human, so the brains of rats are experimented upon to
maybe get some idea about how
human brains work, on a destructive basis that has very bad effect
upon the experimenters.
> > The biggest brain disorder is to believe in nonsense such as
> > einsteinism, etc. and its consequences. This is the impact of social
> > conditioning, which is a brain function/
>
> Einstein?
with its weird derivates has caused the brain disorder of all
physcists, who now cannot distinguish
between fact and theory, truth and lie - and with the hallowed
position they possess, they have infected all societies with similar
brain disorders, making thus
much money for both themselves and the loony doctors.
Cheers,
Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all
time, sole god among lotsa devils.
c(V)=c+V
e=0.5mVVN(N-k)
time, sole god among lotsa devils.
c(V)=c+V
0 new messages