The afterlife...

[Asclepius]

Hoffman is piggybacking James, here, but still...

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

USA is the only western country that sticks up for religious rights for all religions of the world. Europe is fucked and same with AUS and NZ in regards to indegious religion and rites.

Ayahuasca and other psychedelics have taught me and millions of peoples many things about death etc. Consciousness is immortal we never truly die its all change another moment of this fleeting existence reincarnation is endless in this world til your soul has evolved enough to move onto more higher planes of existence closer to divine love and source. This universe and life on earth is a first step of birth we are from the eternal source and will eventually return. We are the product of eternal immortal consciouness "god" exploring the infinite reality to try understand itself. Reality has no limits for it is truly infinite in every form. Our human minds would never be able to fully understand the extent of the infinite. Existence is eternal creation from nothing a paradox that we would never comprehend with our limited minds.

The wheel of karma spins and spins in a eternal cycle what you sow in the fields of earth you will accumulate and everything balances out. Hell is a real place in reality souls that end up in hell only have themselve to blame due to their karma they will evenutally repay this karmic debt and be given new life on earth to start over.

We are the universe or reality experiencing itself there is truly only one thing and that is god we simply pick up on consciouness its eternal all things have consciousness. We are not our brains or our body but the awareness under it all. The eternal true self immortal consciouness underlying all of reality. As our soul evolves we will live many many lifetimes as different things for infinity reality is endless. The closer we come to source we realize the ultimate truth that the source of reality is unconditional love this brings many problems for our human understanding of Morales evil suffering etc. Duality gives arise to creation all things had to be balanced to work. Time doesn't exist all things are happening at once in a one giant flash out of nothingness a true miracle. This topic would require alot more writing to give it any justice. But anybody can experince these things if your are willing to breakthrough the veil and see for yourself those who deny otherwise are just cowards plain and simple they will love to deny the divine nature of the universe because they hold to their ego and dont want to accept the truths of reality that everything is truly nothing this why they will never load a pipe of 5-meo dmt or n,n dmt or take 1000 ug of acid.

Yeah it is also legal in Peru and Brasil, and it is not legal in NL/Benelux but they do not like drug tourists.

 

[Gormur]

I don't believe in an afterlife per se. That is, i think your consciousness is life then that transforms into another plane of existence when you're dead

 

[Foreigner]

I get the questioning of certitude and rightly so, however...
Really, you're supporting someone who, posts, or formerly posted" there is anecdotal evidence" - oxymoron, much?




100% real facs

lol

Showing up to shit uselessly on another thread, I see. I noticed how you used the "laugh" reaction to all my posts, and then posted this piece of shit comment that adds virtually nothing to the discussion.

"Anecdotal evidence" isn't an oxymoron, it's part of established research. It's also known as experience reporting, which forms part of the basis of future research questions, hypotheses, and theories.

You like to be insulting when you clearly don't even know how science conducts its investigations. You asked for peace in the other thread when you bowed out, and now you are here starting up all over again.

Sad to see yet another thread 'tarded up by you because you just can't control your compulsions.

 

[F.U.B.A.R.]

DMT is beyond the imagination if aliens to were to land in spaceship on the white house grounds right now it would be way more probable and less mind blowing than the DMT experince. DMT is sooooo beyond anything human or anything we can come up. Its impossible to explain but i say just go ahead and do yourself and acutally breakthrough the veil then come back and critically assess the experince and see what you believe. 5-meo dmt is called the god molecule for a reason i wish most people could have this experince. I really dont bother explaining it people who haven't done it because they would never understand unless they have done it. Eventually everybody learns "TRUTH" whenever it be the first time on their death or not. Live a good life don't harm others and you have nothing to worry about because fundamentally in reality we all part of a infinite system all connected.

I know the UK itself is quite cut off from spiritualism in the general population living in concrete jungles does this people.

There are things that can anybody can try and then come back and see if their views are still the same.

Heh, I find it quite amusing that you claim to know 'The Truth', yet you seem to have no command of spelling or grammar. Your arguments would be much more convincing had you so.

Admittedly, many drugs can induce so called 'spiritual' experiences, but that doesn't mean that they are 'real'. Just because the mechanism of action of DMT and LSD etc. Is not yet fully known, doesn't mean that my level of certitude is any less than yours. However, what does seem certain is that a brain is required for these drugs to act upon. Earlier posts from you and others suggest that the brain isn't actually necessary for consciousness and/or spirituality, therefore, I would postulate that hallucinogenics are only ever capable of a pseudo spirituality that we will never know if real or not.

 

[relex_author]

Showing up to shit uselessly on another thread, I see. I noticed how you used the "laugh" reaction to all my posts, and then posted this piece of shit comment that adds virtually nothing to the discussion.

"Anecdotal evidence" isn't an oxymoron, it's part of established research. It's also known as experience reporting, which forms part of the basis of future research questions, hypotheses, and theories.

You like to be insulting when you clearly don't even know how science conducts its investigations. You asked for peace in the other thread when you bowed out, and now you are here starting up all over again.

Sad to see yet another thread 'tarded up by you because you just can't control your compulsions.

There were I think reports of subjects of LSD tests, or mere LSD users, having experiences of some kind of visiting the dimension called (the one which is obviously called, if real) Faeces Lake. I read about that in a reincarnation book in the 90s.

 

[drug_mentor]

I understand what you mean to the extent that you cannot prove a negative.

I'm a little confused; are you resiling from your claim or reiterating it? I provided trivial counterexamples to the claim that "you cannot prove a negative", and if you are not conceding the point I would genuinely like to know why.

Referring to my previous post, on the broad construal of "a negative" (as it is used in this context), the claim that 'you cannot prove a negative' is a negative statement. Therefore, according to itself, it is unprovable.

 

[relex_author]

There wasn't a pre-born existence. You just didn't exist.

Would you actually prefer that to be true? Or are you 16??? Comment over!

 

[ChemicallyEnhanced]

I'm a little confused; are you resiling from your claim or reiterating it? I provided trivial counterexamples to the claim that "you cannot prove a negative", and if you are not conceding the point I would genuinely like to know why.

Referring to my previous post, on the broad construal of "a negative" (as it is used in this context), the claim that 'you cannot prove a negative' is a negative statement. Therefore, according to itself, it is unprovable.

No, I'm sticking with what I said. I was just saying that it is against the laws of physics to attempt to prove a negative - it cannot be done. Therefor the negative is assumed.
It is the other views' job to prove a positive to suggest something exists, not the other way around. Since in this case there is not only no proof there is not even a suggestion or hint and so the afterlife does not exist, or is so extraordinarily unlikely to exist that it is to be assumed that it does not.

 

[ChemicallyEnhanced]

Would you actually prefer that to be true? Or are you 16??? Comment over!

Of course I'd prefer it to be true! Who wouldn't prefer the idea of going to a place of pure happiness and peace where one is reunited with their loved ones.
But that is just a fantasy people cling to because they either are scared of or are unable to accept that one day they will cease to exist and the world will just go on without them (which is VERY arrogant) or because they have people close to them who have died and they want to think of them as being "in a better place" instead of just accepting that they are dead and gone.

 

[relex_author]

What an amazing thread!!!

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

Of course I'd prefer it to be true! Who wouldn't prefer the idea of going to a place of pure happiness and peace where one is reunited with their loved ones.
But that is just a fantasy people cling to because they either are scared of or are unable to accept that one day they will cease to exist and the world will just go on without them (which is VERY arrogant) or because they have people close to them who have died and they want to think of them as being "in a better place" instead of just accepting that they are dead and gone.

How do you feel about reincarnation? Or Kundalini, telepathy, or spiritual/religious experiences?

Shanti Devi - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Gopi Krishna (yogi) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Jiddu Krishnamurti - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[relex_author]

A form of Hell recently discovered (invented) is called Reverse Inside Corridor and it is be hard to explain.

 

[drug_mentor]

No, I'm sticking with what I said. I was just saying that it is against the laws of physics to attempt to prove a negative - it cannot be done. Therefor the negative is assumed.
It is the other views' job to prove a positive to suggest something exists, not the other way around. Since in this case there is not only no proof there is not even a suggestion or hint and so the afterlife does not exist, or is so extraordinarily unlikely to exist that it is to be assumed that it does not.

Okay, thanks for clarifying your position. I believe that proving a negative can be done rather easily, and I will endeavour to show this. I can think of a broad interpretation of the term "a negative", as well as a narrower interpretation. On the broad interpretation, I take "a negative" to be any statement of the form 'it is not the case that p'. I will refer to this class of statements as 'broad negatives'. On the narrow interpretation a negative concerns only existence statements, they take the form 'there does not exist an x such that x is an F'.* I will refer to this class of statements as 'narrow negatives'.

Here is a proof of a broad negative:
1. If Donald Trump is president of the United States, then it is not the case that Donald Trump is 30 years old.
2. Donald Trump is president of the United States.
Therefore,
3. It is not the case that Donald Trump is 30 years old.

A candidate is eligible for the US presidency only if they are at least 35 years old, so the first premise is true. It is well-known that the second premise is true. The conclusion follows from premises 1 and 2 by modus ponens. I hope it is clear that the conclusion is a broad negative, in the sense defined earlier in this post.

Here are some proofs of narrow negatives:
(i)
1. For any x, if x is a circle then x is not a square.
Therefore,
2. There does not exist an x such that x is both a circle and a square.**

(ii)
1. The thylacine is extinct.
Therefore,
2. There does not exist an x such that x is a thylacine and x is alive in 2019.

I take myself to have presented a fairly serious challenge to your claim. I expect that, if you won't concede the point, you will have to deny that these are proofs, or that the conclusions of the proofs are "negative" statements in the sense you mean. If the former, please indicate what is wrong with the proofs. If the latter, please provide a definition of "a negative".

* I mean for this to include the more long-winded 'there does not exist an x such that x is an F' and x is a G' - in fact, the conclusions of my proofs of narrow negatives will have this form.
** This can be shown more rigorously using first-order logic. I will use '(x)' as a universal quantifier, 'Ex' as an existential quantifier, '~' for negation, '->' as a conditional, and '&' for conjunction. I'm using the natural deduction rules from EJ Lemmon's Beginning Logic (incidentally, if you refer to the book, you can find a proof of another narrow negative on p. 125). Let F stand for circle and let G stand for square.
1 (1) (x)(Fx->~Gx) - Assumption
2 (2) Ex(Fx & Gx) - Assumption
3 (3) Fa & Ga - Assumption
3 (4) Fa - 3, &-Elimination
3 (5) Ga - 3, &-Elimination
1 (6) Fa->~Ga - 1, Universal Elimination
1,3 (7) ~Ga - 4, 6 Modus Ponens
1,3 (8 ) Ga & ~Ga - 5, 7 &-Introduction
3 (9) ~(x)(Fx->~Gx) - 1-8, Reductio ad Absurdum
2 (10) ~(x)(Fx->~Gx) - 2, 3, 9, Existential Elimination
1,2 (11) (x)(Fx->~Gx) & ~(x)(Fx->~Gx) - 1, 10 &-Introduction
1 (12) ~Ex(Fx & Gx) - 2-11 Reductio ad Absurdum
Q.E.D.

 

[F.U.B.A.R.]

Talk about overthinking things...


There can never be any proof one way or the other on this topic as it is purely based upon subjective experience. The null hypothesis is always easier to support and in the absence of objective evidence, this is all we're gonna get.

 

[ChemicallyEnhanced]

How do you feel about reincarnation? Or Kundalini, telepathy, or spiritual/religious experiences?

Shanti Devi - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Gopi Krishna (yogi) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Jiddu Krishnamurti - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I don't need the links lol. DON'T ASSUME MY IGNORANCE

I'm willing to accept the idea of telepathy - more as a very deep connection (such as what some monozygotic twins display) than as actual psychic phenomena - but the rest are 100% bullshit. I do think people can gave certain deep experiences that they misinterpret as "spiritual".

 

[ChemicallyEnhanced]

Okay, thanks for clarifying your position. I believe that proving a negative can be done rather easily, and I will endeavour to show this. I can think of a broad interpretation of the term "a negative", as well as a narrower interpretation. On the broad interpretation, I take "a negative" to be any statement of the form 'it is not the case that p'. I will refer to this class of statements as 'broad negatives'. On the narrow interpretation a negative concerns only existence statements, they take the form 'there does not exist an x such that x is an F'.* I will refer to this class of statements as 'narrow negatives'.

Here is a proof of a broad negative:
1. If Donald Trump is president of the United States, then it is not the case that Donald Trump is 30 years old.
2. Donald Trump is president of the United States.
Therefore,
3. It is not the case that Donald Trump is 30 years old.

A candidate is eligible for the US presidency only if they are at least 35 years old, so the first premise is true. It is well-known that the second premise is true. The conclusion follows from premises 1 and 2 by modus ponens. I hope it is clear that the conclusion is a broad negative, in the sense defined earlier in this post.

Here are some proofs of narrow negatives:
(i)
1. For any x, if x is a circle then x is not a square.
Therefore,
2. There does not exist an x such that x is both a circle and a square.**

(ii)
1. The thylacine is extinct.
Therefore,
2. There does not exist an x such that x is a thylacine and x is alive in 2019.

I take myself to have presented a fairly serious challenge to your claim. I expect that, if you won't concede the point, you will have to deny that these are proofs, or that the conclusions of the proofs are "negative" statements in the sense you mean. If the former, please indicate what is wrong with the proofs. If the latter, please provide a definition of "a negative".

* I mean for this to include the more long-winded 'there does not exist an x such that x is an F' and x is a G' - in fact, the conclusions of my proofs of narrow negatives will have this form.
** This can be shown more rigorously using first-order logic. I will use '(x)' as a universal quantifier, 'Ex' as an existential quantifier, '~' for negation, '->' as a conditional, and '&' for conjunction. I'm using the natural deduction rules from EJ Lemmon's Beginning Logic (incidentally, if you refer to the book, you can find a proof of another narrow negative on p. 125). Let F stand for circle and let G stand for square.
1 (1) (x)(Fx->~Gx) - Assumption
2 (2) Ex(Fx & Gx) - Assumption
3 (3) Fa & Ga - Assumption
3 (4) Fa - 3, &-Elimination
3 (5) Ga - 3, &-Elimination
1 (6) Fa->~Ga - 1, Universal Elimination
1,3 (7) ~Ga - 4, 6 Modus Ponens
1,3 (8 ) Ga & ~Ga - 5, 6 &-Introduction
3 (9) ~(x)(Fx->~Gx) - 1-8, Reductio ad Absurdum
2 (10) ~(x)(Fx->~Gx) - 2, 3, 9, Existential Elimination
1,2 (11) (x)(Fx->~Gx) & ~(x)(Fx->~Gx) - 1, 10 &-Introduction
1 (12) ~Ex(Fx & Gx) - 2-11 Reductio ad Absurdum
Q.E.D.

By being unable to prove a negative I meant it in a MUCH simpler way. It's not particularly my theory rather something I was taught in physics at school.
For example you cannot prove that a thing does not exist. You cannot prove that a certain thing will NEVER happen etc.

 

[drug_mentor]

By being unable to prove a negative I meant it in a MUCH simpler way. It's not particularly my theory rather something I was taught in physics at school.
For example you cannot prove that a thing does not exist. You cannot prove that a certain thing will NEVER happen etc.

What you mean seems to more closely approximate the narrow interpretation than the broad one. In school they may have taught you that you can't prove that a thing does not exist, but I believe that my previous post demonstrates that what you were taught is false (or you are not stating the thesis with the nuance required to make it true). Perhaps you could argue that we can't really prove that a certain animal is extinct, but (i) certainly proves that a certain mathematical object does not exist. Do you think there is something wrong with (i)? If not, then do you concede that it is in fact a proof that a particular thing does not exist?

 

[iridescentblack]

If you believe in an after life then I would be interested in hearing what you believe happens after the lights go out. Think we carry our vices with us, so a smoker fiends for a cigarette, an opiate user craves his dope, and so forth? Think we have to relive our mistakes, or face a judge of sorts? What about temptation? Pain? Also, which version of you are you, in the afterlife? The young Derek, the middle aged Derek, or the old man Derek?

I know a lot of my problems in life - mostly distortions - have been created by myself. I have gone through what has already seemed like hell in order to overcome a lot of these problems. Following the advice of teachers, I have gone on to organize my thoughts better and be guided more by my feelings. There is no way I could describe what I was like mentally before, without going into great detail. I just feel like saying the sort of mental distortions I had are mostly unique to me, so it mostly doesn't matter- the context of them. Probably a lot of people, mostly those who think a lot and talk a lot have their own unique distortions they need to work through. And I say NEED because I feel that may be part of the question you're asking...?

Anywho. I guess, with that said, my afterlife would kind of mimic my struggles in getting rid of those thoughts or somehow (by some divine light of inspiration) guide me into a better place, assuming that I had fought hard enough to become a better person.

 

[Yourbaker]

One of the most difficult issues in this discussion is the lack of specificity of the afterlife we are discussing. Originally I assumed this thread was taking a spiritual view of the essence I call "me" and discussing our opinions of this belief of "me" just passing through this experience we call life and extrapolating on what we would imagine to be next.

I'd like to add a different viewpoint to look at the same question. We've all heard the song lyrics that we die twice, once when they put us in the ground and a second time when the last person says our name. I'd like to take this viewpoint on afterlife but it's not about your name or even about being remembered that extend your very real existence after death, it's about what you have provided for humanity to continue using after your gone.

We remember mathematical formulas by adding the name of the person who gave us this insight (like Euclidean or Pythagorean etc) but millions of improvements to humanity have come from unnamed-unknown sources, IMHO it's not about us being remembered as the individual but us as the individual providing something tangible for the society we leave behind and we truly don't die because the understanding we build today is the bedrock of our future.

In my opinion even the religions began with the understanding that it isn't about the dead and our race to get there and join them but it's about the living and what are we individually doing to improve life for those coming behind us.