Is there anyone here who believes in an afterlife?

[Rainmaker]

How did you study it? I've seen a few book recommendations, I think it was 'Old Path White Clouds: Walking in the Footsteps of the Buddha'. Do you still practice meditation?

What I don't understand is how most of the population seem to unquestionably accept all mass just popped into existence, exploded and expanded, condensed into spheres of material, grouping themselves into solar systems, into galaxies and them ultimately the Universe, BUT then somehow some these balls of rock allowed the existence of organisms starting out as single cell beings, gradually evolving into creatures with a conciousness as intricate as ours.

Every single thing you see, every smell, every taste, every sound and every opinion, science says originally developed from a tiny point of expanding space. If anyone can legitimately say they can even begin to fathom this without their head exploding then I'll take my hat off to them!

I suppose until Science can prove how or why we ultimately came to exist and have concious thought, it won't be able to prove where we go when we cease to exist.

I started reading about Buddhism about 18 years ago. From there I started meditating twice a day, met with teachers from around the world. From the two schools of Zen (Soto and Rinzai), the four main schools of Tibetan Buddhsm (Karma Kagyu, Sakya, Nyingma, Gelug), the Pure Land tradition, Theravadin tradition and others. I studied under Dr Akong Tulku Rinpoche and met with Lama Jampa Thaye and others. I still meditate regularly, yes, and still consider myself a Buddhist though my experiences have vastly expanded on it over the years. But then again that's exactly what Buddha taught would happen lol

I have no issue with science, in fact Buddhism and science are decent bedfellows. I just dislike people who start shouting loudly about there being "proof" that all we see is all there is (until the next discovery which changes it all again...), meanwhile calling anyone who wishes to ponder alternatives an "idiot", "blinkered" and "foolish". Especially when they're telling everyone that science "fully" understands the nature of all matter and energy (tell that to a quantum physicist if you want to make them laugh out loud). It seems rather ironic to me.

 

[e36Adz]

Yep I do. I believe the One who gave us life the first time, will do so again and we will have to account for all our actions.

 

[Rainmaker]

Yes it is, and yes I think you are. I already priovided my evidence above proving your opinions here to be wrong and incorrect from a neurological viewpoint.

It really isnt my problem that you dont understand neuroscience in the slightest bit, and think that comparing thought processes to X rays is in any way a valid comparison or assumption.

I didn't compare thought processes to x-rays, you're building straw men now. You said that science "fully" (your word) understands all energy, and if life after death exists science would be able to detect it. I simply pointed out that science is discovering new forms and types and interactions of energy in our OWN universe on an almost daily basis - so how do you expect that they'd somehow have a tool to detect and "see" any afterlife should it exist. Please quit calling me an idiot, especially while you're making such sweeping statements about science.

 

[bhavv]

I have no issue with science, in fact Buddhism and science are decent bedfellows. I just dislike people who start shouting loudly about there being "proof" that all we see is all there is (until the next discovery which changes it all again...), meanwhile calling anyone who wishes to ponder alternatives an "idiot", "blinkered" and "foolish". Especially when they're telling everyone that science "fully" understands the nature of all matter and energy (tell that to a quantum physicist if you want to make them laugh out loud). It seems rather ironic to me.

I never actually said that that science understands the full nature of 'all matter and energy', but it surely does fully understand the nature of the 'Human Body' and 'Neuroscience'.

Your problem is applying baseless, spiritual quack job theories to human consciousness.

Also by the way, a Quantum Pyhsicist is still not a Neurologist.

 

[Westyfield2]

Is there anyone here who believes in an afterlife?

Yep - Christian .

 

[i-bert]

Science fully understands all energy now? Does that statement even deserve a response aside from 'lol'? Once again you continue to hammer at the same old point about physical machines. The point of this debate is whether there is an alternate existence outside of that physical death. It is not neuroscience, it is not biology. It's not something you can measure by looking at the human body. Biologists wouldn't have a thesis about the afterlife, biology studies the present life. If you want to read a thesis about the afterlife I suggest you take a course in RE.

You're completely missing my point, and despite setting out to make me seem obtuse and blinkered, I feel I've been anything but. I'm asking you to provide evidence that there is no etheric soul, no continued existence, no multiversal approach to life which doesn't preclude existence outside of the physical form we see in this world. All you can do is say "lol religion" and tell me what your neuro module told you five years ago, while completely ignoring the possibility that the "soul" or whatever doesn't have a biological basis. And you call me ignorant?

Don't worry.

Bhavv is the OCUK official know it all.

Didn't you get the memo?

 

[Surfer]

You obviously dont understand a thing about science, and simply use whatever you personally believe about it as an excuse to justify your own beliefs.

Science now fully understands energy, and also how the human body works. Thought processes and impulses are fully created by a living, functional brain. When the brain stops working, so does its ability to create these thought impulses, beliefs and consciousness. I am sorry that you are so deeply rooted into your spiritual beliefs to be so closed mined to understand any truths between how the physical and organic structures within the human body work, and how they cease to function after death, but that is your own problem.

Ok, now let me ask you this - Find me a reputable and qualified biologist who believes that human consciousness can exist outside of of death, and provide me to a link on his / her thesis arguing how this can be possible.

How about you actually try to think instead of regurgitating the same rubbish again and again. I don't doubt that your studies include neurology and know about the "soft" problem of consciousness. But tell me how consciousness arises in the brain. Afterall you are adamant the consciousness can only exist in a fully functioning brain so you must know the conditions for its existence. I think you are getting confused and identifying brain state conditions with consciousness itself rather than them being just the measurement of.

I've already cited one case where one women was clearly conscious and yet her brain state was to all intents and purposes - dead -. How do you explain that?

Trying using your brain

here i'll help

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/articles/article/manjircolumn2.htm/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

 

[CliffyBiro]

Yeah, I do. And the thought of such is a little frightening at times.

 

[bhavv]

I didn't compare thought processes to x-rays, you're building straw men now. You said that science "fully" (your word) understands all energy, and if life after death exists science would be able to detect it. I simply pointed out that science is discovering new forms and types and interactions of energy in our OWN universe on an almost daily basis - so how do you expect that they'd somehow have a tool to detect and "see" any afterlife should it exist. Please quit calling me an idiot, especially while you're making such sweeping statements about science.

I dont agree one bit with this. X Rays were discovered a long long time ago, as were gamma rays, nuclear energy, microwaves etc etc....

What kind of new energy exactly are you refering to that has only recently been discovered?

Also, energy that exists and is created in the human body is fully observable and understandable in current buiology, it isnt anything as complex as quantum physics, in fact, the human body is likely the easiest thing to study and learn about in Science, because yes, we do know everything there is to know about it to the point of artificially recreating organs, and being able to genetically modify and tailor human life however we see fit (ethical regulations are what limit and disallow such scientific freedom and progress of the quality of human life).

 

[Rainmaker]

I never actually said that that science understands the full nature of 'all matter and energy',

No but you did say:

Science now fully understands energy, and also how the human body works.

Existing energy is never completely invisible or untraceable, hence if the 'energy' of peoples 'spirits' still lived on and functioned after death, that energy would be detectable.

I simply pointed out that this was a silly thing to say. Science can't even explain or fully detect the energy we "know" exists in our physical universe, let alone start understanding or detecting energies from other universes or "realms" of existence. Your statement was a little amusing, considering you followed it up with calling me a blinkered idiot.

Your problem is applying baseless, spiritual quack job theories to human consciousness.

Also by the way, a Quantum Pyhsicist is still not a Neurologist.

No, but again you're redirecting in an attempt to make me look silly on an unrelated matter. I simply said quantum physicists would laugh at you for stating that science fully understands energy (see your quote above). A quantum physicist is a quantum physicist, not a neurologist. Gold star for you. My point is that they're both scientists and if neurologists have now declared they can prove beyond doubt that there is no afterlife, and that they "fully understand" the nature of consciousness and can prove the lack of existence of a non-etheric soul (which would be difficult since they can't measure it), I'd be astounded.

 

[bhavv]

How about you actually try to think instead of regurgitating the same rubbish again and again. I don't doubt that your studies include neurology and know about the "soft" problem of consciousness. But tell me how consciousness arises in the brain. Afterall you are adamant the consciousness can only exist in a fully functioning brain so you must know the conditions for its existence. I think you are getting confused and identifying brain state conditions with consciousness itself rather than them being just the measurement of.

I've already cited one case where one women was clearly conscious and yet her brain state was to all intents and purposes - dead -. How do you explain that?

The brain obviously wasnt dead. I already provided an article discussing exactly that consciousness is a biogical phenomenon, and only realises within the inner neurological functions of the body, so I dont really see how people can continue to refute that without even a single piece of solid counter evidence.

 

[izzy eckerslike]

i do believe in an afterlife

Yes as a muslim i do believe in an afterlife and in God.

Oh hello boys I see you've already infiltrated this thread

Don't worry, I won't upset you by joining in this one as it's just more of the same blurb as before

 

[i-bert]

Oh hello boys I see you've already infiltrated this tread

Don't worry, I won't upset you by joining in this one as it's just more of the same blurb as before

 

[bhavv]

No but you did say:

Actually, I still believe that science does fully understand energy, and you saying that a 'Quantum Physicist would laugh at this' is not in any way a valid counter to this.

How about this - Any neurologist, or person that has been educated as such would laugh at you and your concept of consciousness after death. I suppose according you your own superior methods of debating, that automatically renders your opinions to be completely false as well (which they definately are).

If you study energy from a scientific perspective, it is impossible to conclude or agree in any way that any form of 'conscious energy' somehow magically fizzes out of and leaves the human body after death, and yet manages to perfectly exist as an undetectable, independent and fully conscious form of eternal and unchanging energy.

Reading the information here under the section 'Regarding applications of the concept of energy', completely invalidates the pinion that some invisible undetectable energy can somehow manage to do this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Energy transfer

Because energy is strictly conserved and is also locally conserved (wherever it can be defined), it is important to remember that by the definition of energy the transfer of energy between the "system" and adjacent regions is work. A familiar example is mechanical work. In simple cases this is written as the following equation:
ΔE = W (1)

if there are no other energy-transfer processes involved. Here E is the amount of energy transferred, and W represents the work done on the system.

More generally, the energy transfer can be split into two categories:
ΔE = W + Q (2)

where Q represents the heat flow into the system.

There are other ways in which an open system can gain or lose energy. In chemical systems, energy can be added to a system by means of adding substances with different chemical potentials, which potentials are then extracted (both of these process are illustrated by fueling an auto, a system which gains in energy thereby, without addition of either work or heat). Winding a clock would be adding energy to a mechanical system. These terms may be added to the above equation, or they can generally be subsumed into a quantity called "energy addition term E" which refers to any type of energy carried over the surface of a control volume or system volume. Examples may be seen above, and many others can be imagined (for example, the kinetic energy of a stream of particles entering a system, or energy from a laser beam adds to system energy, without either being either work-done or heat-added, in the classic senses).
ΔE = W + Q + E (3)

Where E in this general equation represents other additional advected energy terms not covered by work done on a system, or heat added to it.

Energy is also transferred from potential energy (Ep) to kinetic energy (Ek) and then back to potential energy constantly. This is referred to as conservation of energy. In this closed system, energy cannot be created or destroyed; therefore, the initial energy and the final energy will be equal to each other. This can be demonstrated by the following:
Epi + Eki = EpF + EkF

The equation can then be simplified further since Ep = mgh (mass times acceleration due to mavity times the height) and (half mass times velocity squared). Then the total amount of energy can be found by adding Ep + Ek = Etotal.

When any organic life form dies, there is 'NONE', absolutely zero, zip, nada energy transfer from the organic body into its surroundings simply through the death process alone. The energy contained within the body is fully contained within its physical mass, which is only released through methods such as decompostion or burning (as either thermal energy released through burning, or biomass energy released through decomposition), and yes, this energy is fully detectable, and even usable.

 

[Rainmaker]

The brain obviously wasnt dead. I already provided an article discussing exactly that consciousness is a biogical phenomenon, and only realises within the inner neurological functions of the body, so I dont really see how people can continue to refute that without even a single piece of solid counter evidence.

I haven't read the 12 year old paper you referenced just yet, but I will read it later. I do wonder how you can say the brain wasn't dead though, given that the heart was stopped, the head was drained of blood, the EEG was flat, and the brainstem was recorded as functionless at the time of the surgery? Not to mention the patient was anaesthetised at the time so regardless of the semantics of "brain death" you'd surely concede she shouldn't have been conscious given that she was under anaesthetic and her brain had no blood in it?

Dr Michael Sabom would probably be very interested to hear how you (since you have a biology degree that had a neurology module) feel his patient was conscious under the above circumstances. As would the rest of us, probably.

 

[Cr0fty]

bhavv, I think you need to open your eyes a little and listen to what Rainmaker is really saying, as opposed to just arguing with his points.

I have no degree, I don't even have my A-Levels yet, and I understand his points - Are you that ignorant that you cannot see past your own beliefs?

 

[Rainmaker]

Actually, I still believe that science does fully understand energy, and you saying that a 'Quantum Physicist would laugh at this' is not in any way a valid counter to this.

How about this - Any neurologist, or person that has been educated as such would laugh at you and your concept of consciousness after death. I suppose according you your own superior methods of debating, that automatically renders your opinions to be completely false as well (which they definately are).

If you study energy from a scientific perspective, it is impossible to conclude or agree in any way that any form of 'conscious energy' somehow magically fizzes out of and leaves the human body after death, and yet manages to perfectly exist as an undetectable, independent and fully conscious form of eternal and unchanging energy.

Reading the information here under the section 'Regarding applications of the concept of energy', completely invalidates the pinion that some invisible undetectable energy can somehow manage to do this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

With the greatest of respect, I'm withdrawing. You can laugh, raise your hands and whoop, and consider it your victory if you like. But there's only so many times I can repeat myself without going insane. You believe science fully understands energy, and you think that for me to say that the scientists who DO study energy disagree with your statement is an invalid counter argument. Nothing much more I can say tbh.

 

[Radiation]

I find it hard enough to accept anything exists at all let alone complex life forms and consciousness, science says evolution and chance are at work, given enough time all sorts of possibilities can happen, my guess is the universe is infinite in time and space so eventually something had to happen and as we know it has at least once then given more time after our death we may appear again in some way, shape or form, it may take many googolplex years while other universes pop in and out of existence but it could happen eventually, here's a good page on eternity.

So that's perhaps a more scientific theory for the afterlife, although id like to believe there's a kind of astral dimension we all go to with reincarnation when we choose.

 

[bhavv]

I haven't read the 12 year old paper you referenced just yet, but I will read it later. I do wonder how you can say the brain wasn't dead though, given that the heart was stopped, the head was drained of blood, the EEG was flat, and the brainstem was recorded as functionless at the time of the surgery? Not to mention the patient was anaesthetised at the time so regardless of the semantics of "brain death" you'd surely concede she shouldn't have been conscious given that she was under anaesthetic and her brain had no blood in it?

Dr Michael Sabom would probably be very interested to hear how you (since you have a biology degree that had a neurology module) feel his patient was conscious under the above circumstances. As would the rest of us, probably.

I cant find what you posted and havnt read it thats why, maybe quoting it, or simply stating the post number when refering to it several pages later would help.

Consciousness still working within the human body in any circumstance, is not evidence that this consciousness would work outside it in anyway, particularly after the body has been burnt to ashes. That is the main belief of the spriritual idea that consciousness can exist after death, not that the brain can remain INTERNALLY conscious after death.

but it could happen eventually, here's a good page on eternity.

Excuse me while I laugh out loud if you think that this is a good page in defense of the concept of Eternity.

 

[Surfer]

The brain obviously wasnt dead. I already provided an article discussing exactly that consciousness is a biogical phenomenon, and only realises within the inner neurological functions of the body, so I dont really see how people can continue to refute that without even a single piece of solid counter evidence.

So we have a problem here.

What would constitute evidence for you that consciousness:brain were not the same thing? As you seem to think that if you answer a question about the brain then summarily questions about consciousness are answered also. Is this correct? Thats what you think? (or what your brain thinks? )

People are not refuting that there is some kind of relationship or correlation with brain states and level of consciousness but to say that those brain states ARE what consciousness is, is a leap of logic too far. It doesn't follow. You dont have the evidence to make that conclusion. Have a wee read of those links i provided.

I get the feeling that either a) you only want to talk about the soft problem and/or b) You ignore or dont think the hard problem of consciousness exists?