• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

What happens when you die?

If you say it can't all end after this, does that imply you have to be reincarnated on this earth, in this plane of existence?

I believe that life is a struggle. It makes more sense to me that the imperfection is to help us learn something to face the next struggle whatever that may be.
 
i believe there is another plane of existence we can reincarnate to, but this is where my opinions become difficult to prove...
 
haha no haha shut up.

it's just where my opinions happen to get off the wall and i cannot prove them.

...yet.
 
See like I said - forgotton ;)

I'll try & go away now :)
 
When did that happen? I would love to read about the scientific disproof of the soul.

And how can science ever possibly prove or disprove that anything does or does not exist beyond the physical world. That would be utterly, well unscientific.

1. I'd say it happened as far back as around 1200 BC, during the time of the Epicurean physicists.

Simply put: The soul, our conscious selves, is atomically constituted as the brain and nervous system, thus corporeal. Like every atomic compound it slowly fades into dissolution and disperses. Given that our conscious selves cannot survive death, once the body dies, there isn't anything to keep the soul together.

2. The physical world is proof in itself. If something exists, it is comprised of physical elements and laws, and vice-versa. I'd write more but I just took a bunch of clonazepam and flurazepam..
 
1. I'd say it happened as far back as around 1200 BC, during the time of the Epicurean physicists.

Simply put: The soul, our conscious selves, is atomically constituted as the brain and nervous system, thus corporeal. Like every atomic compound it slowly fades into dissolution and disperses. Given that our conscious selves cannot survive death, once the body dies, there isn't anything to keep the soul together.

2. The physical world is proof in itself. If something exists, it is comprised of physical elements and laws, and vice-versa. I'd write more but I just took a bunch of clonazepam and flurazepam..

1. You don't question the assumption that the soul is necessarily the same as the conscious which is necessarily the same as essentially a series of biologically generated electrical impulses.

Convenient to the belief that there effectively is no "abstract" concept of the soul beyond the brain and nervous system, but still nothing more than a school of thought and by no means "scientific proof".

For the record, what you have written is essentially lifted almost verbatim from common modern reductions of schools of thought - in this case the *philosophy* you describe is correctly attributable in the phrases you have used to Lucretius. And check your dates, although maybe you meant to type in 200 BC.

1200 BC in Greek civilization would have been about at the end of the reign of the at best semi-legendary Theseus.

As long as we are in 1200 BC, Plutarch gives an interesting comparison of Theseus versus Romulus in his "Lives" and by his own admission:

"As geographers, Sosius, crowd into the edges of their maps parts of the world which they do not know about, adding notes in the margin to the effect, that beyond this lies nothing but the sandy deserts full of wild beasts, unapproachable bogs, Scythian ice, or a frozen sea, so in this work of mine, in which I have compared the lives of the greatest men with one another, after passing through those periods which probable reasoning can reach to and real history find a footing in, I might very well say of those that are farther off: "Beyond this there is nothing but prodigies and fictions, the only inhabitants are the poets and inventors of fables; there is no credit, or certainty any farther."

Advanced ideas about atomic theory are not likely to survive down through the ages when a culture is still essentially describing the mythos of it's own origins.


2. The physical world is proof of absolutely nothing other than the existence of the physical world. In fact there are many theories about multiverse rather than universe. Science and it's laws can only be applied to our universe. We can reasonably assume that our universe is expanding into a vacuum. That is not by any means the same as saying our universe is expanding into "absolute nothingness" and what lies beyond our universe is outside the realm of any sort of scientific determination one way or another.

I am sorry but all you are presenting is a particular belief system you yourself have as accepted as fact, no better and no worse than anyone else's belief system, except you also choose to dress it in what you believe to be "science" but is not, and therefore as "fact" when it is not (in terms if something is either factual or it is not factual. What you present is possibly true, just as possibly not true. Since it cannot be presented as fact, it must necessarily be not factual).

Much like Plutarch's geographers, something I see very often when people offer "scientific proof" on Bluelight about philosophy and spirtuality, is they are taking a "map" of what they believe to be scientific knowledge, and merely use the edges to scribble in notes like "Ignorant superstition" or "Nothing" or "Infinity" and think that science has somehow proven that to be the case. The reality is often that is nothing more than a convenience to prevent having to accept the truth that the map is still limited and beyond it's edges, the map can offer no real guidance.

In this case, where the map ends at Life and Death, we can all scribble in something - reincarnation, resurrection to the kingdom of Heaven, "nothing". You are sure science proves "nothing". It has not even come close. Whatever any of us put in those margins, sorry, your notations are no more convincing than any other cartographer of the human experience.

The only absolute is "There is no credit, or certainty any farther".
 
Last edited:
^ I object to being classified as "all" you would find if you had read my concise post that I do not fit that description.
 
The reasoning mind seems to be a useful, but limited facet of our consciousness. It seems to be useful for discovering, remembering, and working with reproducible sequences. for example, reason helps you learn that the sequence of taking out the garbage concludes with a happy wife, pretty much every time. using this circuit alone to make spiritual inquiries, whatever the sentiment, seems to lead to suffering.

I have had an experience with psilocybin that suggested to me that life is just one flavor of existence, and that awareness is present everywhere. What I consider to be *my* awareness I saw as an eddy in the totality of awareness, turning inward, grasping at it's intangible self. Reason is the wrong tool for exploring such territory.

for anyone who believes that consciousness is localized to the brain, and is interested in challenging that belief....DMT.

I don't know what to expect from death. Survival and annihilation both have their pros and cons. I suspect that neither will seem accurate in the bardo.
 
reason helps you learn that the sequence of taking out the garbage concludes with a happy wife,


Typo - or am i just blisfully ignorant of something ?
 
1. You don't question the assumption that the soul is necessarily the same as the conscious which is necessarily the same as essentially a series of biologically generated electrical impulses.

Convenient to the belief that there effectively is no "abstract" concept of the soul beyond the brain and nervous system, but still nothing more than a school of thought and by no means "scientific proof".

For the record, what you have written is essentially lifted almost verbatim from common modern reductions of schools of thought - in this case the *philosophy* you describe is correctly attributable in the phrases you have used to Lucretius. And check your dates, although maybe you meant to type in 200 BC.

1200 BC in Greek civilization would have been about at the end of the reign of the at best semi-legendary Theseus.

As long as we are in 1200 BC, Plutarch gives an interesting comparison of Theseus versus Romulus in his "Lives" and by his own admission:

"As geographers, Sosius, crowd into the edges of their maps parts of the world which they do not know about, adding notes in the margin to the effect, that beyond this lies nothing but the sandy deserts full of wild beasts, unapproachable bogs, Scythian ice, or a frozen sea, so in this work of mine, in which I have compared the lives of the greatest men with one another, after passing through those periods which probable reasoning can reach to and real history find a footing in, I might very well say of those that are farther off: "Beyond this there is nothing but prodigies and fictions, the only inhabitants are the poets and inventors of fables; there is no credit, or certainty any farther."

Advanced ideas about atomic theory are not likely to survive down through the ages when a culture is still essentially describing the mythos of it's own origins.


2. The physical world is proof of absolutely nothing other than the existence of the physical world. In fact there are many theories about multiverse rather than universe. Science and it's laws can only be applied to our universe. We can reasonably assume that our universe is expanding into a vacuum. That is not by any means the same as saying our universe is expanding into "absolute nothingness" and what lies beyond our universe is outside the realm of any sort of scientific determination one way or another.

I am sorry but all you are presenting is a particular belief system you yourself have as accepted as fact, no better and no worse than anyone else's belief system, except you also choose to dress it in what you believe to be "science" but is not, and therefore as "fact" when it is not (in terms if something is either factual or it is not factual. What you present is possibly true, just as possibly not true. Since it cannot be presented as fact, it must necessarily be not factual).

Much like Plutarch's geographers, something I see very often when people offer "scientific proof" on Bluelight about philosophy and spirtuality, is they are taking a "map" of what they believe to be scientific knowledge, and merely use the edges to scribble in notes like "Ignorant superstition" or "Nothing" or "Infinity" and think that science has somehow proven that to be the case. The reality is often that is nothing more than a convenience to prevent having to accept the truth that the map is still limited and beyond it's edges, the map can offer no real guidance.

In this case, where the map ends at Life and Death, we can all scribble in something - reincarnation, resurrection to the kingdom of Heaven, "nothing". You are sure science proves "nothing". It has not even come close. Whatever any of us put in those margins, sorry, your notations are no more convincing than any other cartographer of the human experience.

The only absolute is "There is no credit, or certainty any farther".

Im in his boat.;)
 
1. You don't question the assumption that the soul is necessarily the same as the conscious which is necessarily the same as essentially a series of biologically generated electrical impulses.

Convenient to the belief that there effectively is no "abstract" concept of the soul beyond the brain and nervous system, but still nothing more than a school of thought and by no means "scientific proof".

I understand there are different connotations to what the soul is, I'm not assuming it is only the same as consciousness, I just don't see the relevance of addressing its other abstract meanings concerning the science of it. If you do, please clarify. As far as proof, science can confirm what has been disproved by philosophy/metaphysics. The soul has a specific nature, and is causally-dependent on a functioning brain. Remove the brain and the soul ceases to exist. Convenient or not, my belief is simply based on logic and lends proof that we are not immortal.

1200 BC in Greek civilization would have been about at the end of the reign of the at best semi-legendary Theseus.

Yeah,... my mistake, I meant 200 BC :!- I was pretty sedated...

2. The physical world is proof of absolutely nothing other than the existence of the physical world. In fact there are many theories about multiverse rather than universe.

Such theories tend to presume a different concept of the "universe" from the more standard definition, which is "all that exists". There can't be more than one instance of "all that exists", for each instance would not encompass the other instances.

If you're referring to the "universe" as a little bubble of a larger multiverse, that is fine, but then you are just using the words to refer to different concepts. The "multiverse", then, is "all that exists", and "universe" is just our little visible bubble. Of course, until there is evidence of other bubbles, the claim to their existence is arbitrary and can be rejected as such.

Science and it's laws can only be applied to our universe.

Right. The universe is all that exists, therefore science and its laws apply to all that exists.

We can reasonably assume that our universe is expanding into a vacuum.

Using what type of reasoning? Deduction from arbitrary principles? Wouldn't this vacuum then be part of all that exists, i.e., the universe? That is not in any way the same as saying our universe is expanding into complete nothingness and what lies beyond our universe is outside the realm of any sort of scientific determination one way or another.

That is not by any means the same as saying our universe is expanding into "absolute nothingness" and what lies beyond our universe is outside the realm of any sort of scientific determination one way or another.

So being that the universe is defined as all that exists this would mean that the universe is "expanding" into itself- a contradiction.

The only absolute is "There is no credit, or certainty any farther".

In a sense, you're implication of me blindly following a "map" is just as much of a "convenient truth" for you. You're following the "map" of the agnostic that discredits both you as well as itself. You say there are no absolutes, blanking out the fact you have given an absolute.
 
You still offer no "proof" that "The soul has a specific nature, and is causally-dependent on a functioning brain. " You also have offered no disproof of any belief otherwise, the assertion you made in your original post.

All you are doing is constraining your definition of soul. But there is no scientific argument to support your choice of constraints. There is no scientifically accepted definition of the soul, merely different schools of thought. That is the realm of Philosophy.

I could simply choose another constraint. For example, my father died 9 years ago. His "atomic being" as you would put it is gone. So according to your constraints his soul is gone.

However, this past Christmas I went to the cemetery. I put flowers on his grave. From a physical point of view, thermodynamic work was done. I would say the cause was simple "I am moved to do this by my father's soul." You could argue that this is all merely a manifestation of my brain. I could argue that in the absence of knowledge of who my father was, this thermodynamic work would never have occurred.

Science is incapable of proving either of our assumptions is correct or incorrect. Therefore science is equally incapable of disproving my assumption in favor of yours.

We could argue the definition of the Universe. But if you use the definition of the Universe as being "everything that exists", then you have to also accept that by expanding the definition, you must also accept that "science and it's laws apply to everything that exists" is no longer valid in anything other than abstract terms as well. The science in this Universe has an empirical basis. We have certain constants that are defined only within our time-energy-matter space continuum. If you expand your definition beyond that, there is no requirement that other physical bodies in the total multiverse exhibit the same physical behavior.

We could argue that "the laws of science still apply" but the framework of science has now become so abstract, that you might as well include infinite possibilities, and so why not "the soul" as well.

The problem is not that I refuse to recognize any absolutes. The speed of light, atomic masses etc, these are all quantities which are known with absolute certainty in our physical existence. The problem is you are trying to expand science to explain things that are simply outside the realm of scientific explanation, as it exists in our Universe. So you really cannot have both. In this case there is in fact a logical constraint on science. Science is the science of our physical sphere of existence - our time space matter energy continuum - that is the only science we have. And there are questions and concepts that our science simply cannot address.

We could "define" a Mozart symphony in terms of a specific set of notes in a specific arrangement. Science cannot adequately explain what motivated Mozart to create this, or what might inspire other musicians to be inspired to play it an infinite number of different ways. Inspiration, like "soul" is an abstract entity. Would anyone deny the empirical evidence that humans are capable of an abstract level of creation we try to define by this word "inspiration". Or that this "inspiration" can perpetuate itself far beyond the grave?

Why would we view the soul any differently?
 
Last edited:
Go ahead and describe or define your concept of a "soul", obviously keeping in mind for what is necessary for a properly formed concept.
 
I cannot define or describe my concept of the "soul". I certainly cannot define or describe anyone else's view of the soul, other than to recognize that we have a certain abstract construction that people often use in a similar way that leads us to a common word.

I can define and describe mathematical constructs. I can define chemical reactions and thermodynamic relationships. Etc etc.

I do not pretend to be able to prove or disprove or even define such things. I cannot define "love" either, although I could make some clear collections of certain aspects of "love", many would in fact be inherently self-contradictory.

Concepts like "love" and "soul" are not rational. They are not scientific. That does not disprove their existence. I am still waiting for you to offer that up.
 
Science is incapable of proving either of our assumptions is correct or incorrect. Therefore science is equally incapable of disproving my assumption in favor of yours.

Science is not for defining words. There's also no scientifically accepted definition of the word "the". Or "word" itself.

There is no scientifically accepted definition of the soul, merely different schools of thought. That is the realm of Philosophy.

Philosophy is the realm of establishing how concepts are integrated and how terms are defined. It's not the realm of defining every single term in existence though.

One thing philosophy can tell us, for sure, is that terms must be defined before they are used, and the concepts they denote must be correctly integrated. So, please, define your terms. What do you mean by soul, and which group of existents does the term denote?
 
Sure, science has no need to define "the". It is an article. There are not even any articles in the Russian language, that is why they often seem to use "a" and "the" arbitrarily.

Why comment on that and not my thermodynamic argument? I am not saying I know there is life after death, or that there is not life after death. I cannot know the answer to that question from either science or philosophy.

You are asking me for definitions and yet I am the one saying that you have constrained your argument to suit only your definition. If you want to say that the biological system of neurological thought and action and reaction ceases to function after death, I have no argument with that.

What you have in fact said is:

"It's a complete lapse in reason to believe in any being or consciousness able to exist beyond the physical world. Bagochina, you seem to be saying that science is wrong having disproved this possibility."

You state that science has disproven the existence of any being or consciousness able to exist beyond the physical world.

I am asking you for that scientific proof. It is a simple request.
 
Last edited:
I fully believe in the concept of reincarnation. And have a humble theory of why people don't remember their past lives. Okay, say when your body dies, your soul simply transforms into a new incarnation to experience and learn from reality. Over all these lives, we forget we are infinite consciousness, manifesting ourselves over and over again. So each time we come back into this planetary reality, we lose more and more of our higher memories. Just keep coming back to a ever smaller box of reality to experience.

Then, there's all the "junk" DNA that could be activated in everyone...
 
Top