You can't experience non-existence, so you can only experience existence.
Given causality never stops, chances are the likelyhood of it giving rise to another 'you' approaches 1 as causality moves on.
Now, if there's a lack of experience in between reincarnations, would the cycle of birth and death feel instantaneous from an individual point of view?
Also do you think 'you' are merely the content of perception, that happens on the projection screen of perception?
Other urls found in this thread:
None of what you posted is real.
What is real?
None of what you posted.
Not an argument.
We experience non-existence when we believed the conditioned reality is permanent and solid, and we call it existence.
Then, non-existence is that which truly exists, and is a faculty that is denied because it mentions infinity and spirituality.
Rather than reincarnation or afterlife, think of yourself as the perceiver, and you will see what happens after the physical body dies and you exit the body along with the mind which is a part of the body.
Heaven, hell, and reincarnation can all simultaneously exists, and the destination is dependent of the individuals karma
Not sure if i got what you are asking right.
Let's suppose if you die you will be reborn, but if that happens, why nobody remembers their past lifes? If it's because they lost their memory, wouldn't it mean they died forever? Memory is what makes most of us who we are after all.
In the end, we really cant find out if there is life after death or not, because if it happens, then nobody remembers it, if it doesnt happens, then that's it.
Memory is a faculty of the brain, and the brain is part of the body. The mind, is essentially the sixth sense and is the ultimate sensory object, for it also sends the signals of the other five senses with and to the body.
The brain is not the highest platform, nor is how we use our brain, nor is what we commonly identify ourselves with. The barrier of identity is to say " I am American" or " I am a skater because I own a skateboard", because they are attempts to give us a sense of identity based on what we live, what we own, and what we think is us, when what is actually is very subtle in the consciousness and in the heart
I think memory is just a specific pattern within the brain that's supposed to be a somewhat accurate representation of an earlier point within causality, but memories can be wrong.
That said, I would reckon it would be possible to reincarnate with an accurate memory of a previous life, but this would be more a result of random chance, rather than an imprint of the actual experience (if that makes sense).
If causality never really stops and goes on and on forever, almost everything that is physically possible did happen at some point or will happen in the future.
If 'you' are part of that causality, and there's an infinite cycle of existence and non-existence, this would mean almost anything possible did happen or wil happen to you. So maybe your imagintation isn't too different from an actual memory, as long as it moves within the realm of the physically possible.
>We experience non-existence when we believed the conditioned reality is permanent and solid, and we call it existence.
It's as real as it gets. I don't think there's such a thing as non-existence from a subjective point of view.
>Heaven, hell, and reincarnation can all simultaneously exists, and the destination is dependent of the individuals karma
If with karma you mean causality like a chain reaction I agree. But then I would argue there's only karma and the individual is just one aspect of the deterministic nature of the universe.
But the mind and emotions are just a subset of the body category. Not even sure what witness is supposed to be, memory? Also subset of the body.
>It's as real as it gets. I don't think there's such a thing as non-existence from a subjective point of view.
It seems it is as real as it gets, but the temporary nature of all material things eventually make something non-existing. Like, a lollipop exists until you eat in, now it transformed into a liquid, the out the digestive system. Everything changes form, all form is subject to change.
To say existence or non-existence, could be interchangeable it seems.
>If with karma you mean causality like a chain reaction I agree. But then I would argue there's only karma and the individual is just one aspect of the deterministic nature of the universe.
Karma is action and actions are causes and effects.
All of what you've written assumes there is some "you" that is experiencing outside of your physical body. How can you demonstrate that experience is nothing more than a transient state of perception and consciousness that is entirely gone once an organism dies? What exists outside of the physical components of an organism that would allow perception to continue if that component became part of another living organism?
>All of what you've written assumes there is some "you" that is experiencing outside of your physical body.
That "you" is not a perceiver outside of your self, that "you" is the supreme perceiver inside the self.
what kind of weed are you smoking, dude?
Think about it, people claim things like soul and God are ridiculous because they believe that God is a force that can only be outside of them, punishing them leaving them stranded, or not existing because we does not deliver things the way we expect them to be handed to us.
Yet the soul is a part of God, and each animated form of life is empowered with this force, which comes from Source, and Source is God, the Original Spirit/Soul, and each living being is animated by the soul from within, rather than a perceiver that is only outside of themselves.
God is within and without entirely, but taking note of that which is within
Cute story pal, tell me more about your D&D game.
Afaik it's just different mental stats that are stacked upon eachother, but everything is happening within the body.
The inner cycle represents a level of awareness that's limited to basic functions I think. Like eat, sleep, and so on. The emotional layer is stacked upon your urges, like feeling bad if they aren't satisfied. The mind is more or less aware of both emotions and your primal urges. The witness is aware of the movement of all the layers below, including the movement of the mind. Or more like the internally verbalized form of thought, I guess.
>tell me more about your D&D game.
Okay.
Rather than choosing to be a wizard or a knight, you consciously make decisions on an everyday platform, associating who you are with where you work, what you like to do, and what your general beliefs are, all to go to bed every night and wonder where the sense of Ultimate Fulfillment is.
The goal of the game is to gain knowledge of the Spirit and knowledge and correct application of the Eternal. The people who come in second place are those who walk in each scenario as if it is permanent and not bound to change, holding onto everything they have.
Those who die in second place come back to the Earth to try again.
Is this the concept of Neti Neti?
>Those who die in second place come back to the Earth to try again
I believe it was Plutarch who said "First is the worst, second is the best, third is the one with the hairy chest."
>life is a competition to gain things and to be in First Place
So spooky!!!
Mhm!
To some degree, at least. I am not this computer nor am I the fingers typing this sentence, nor am I the screen on the computer. I am not the body. I am not the mind.
A strange comparison with the lollipop, but our energy transforms into a new being/same being rather than vanish into nothingness, somehwattt
>"First is the worst, second is the best, third is the one with the hairy chest."
How is saying God is a part of us more ridiculous than Plutarch's quote?
It isn't about Vanity First Place, it is about seeking that First Place. The Second Place is the material world and false ego and false associations and suffering over temporary objects and false presumptions of relationships etc., while the First Place is the Eternal Structure and Nature of the Ultimate Truths.
>I am not the body. I am not the mind.
You literally are though...?
Sounds like theosophy.
I don't believe we make a conscious decisions about what kind of life we want to live, after we die. There's only randomness within the realm of what's possible. Or rather events that cause other events, that cause more events, ad infinitum. On the other hand I'm not sure if that really is radnomness or rather an aspect of hard determinism. I suppose you could argue though that the nuclear decay for instance actually seems to be random, which would speak against hard determinism? I don't know.
>structuring the universe conveniently in a simple way that there is a "good" thing and the rest of it is "bad"
Spooktacular!
I am in this body, I am in this mind, but when I die, these are subject to decay. The form of body is not you, the thoughts of the mind are not you. You can choose to exalt body/mind and associate with you appearance and thoughts as eternal structures, but they are not that.
You are the/this body and the/this mind temporarily
Mind, Body, and Soul, the Soul is what is lasting. Reincarnation, new body, new mind. Heaven, Pure Soul, Pure Consciousness, Celestial Force Body.
I asked because isn't there an opposite thing to neti-neti? Like instead not this not this, this and this. Something like that. Forgot the name.
>wouldn't it mean they died forever?
listen dude, the progression of time as perceived by man is simply a projection, an illusion. All possible moments within the temporal sphere have already happened, will happen, and are all happening simultaneously.
All you are currently aware of is just a cross-section of an infinitely complex reality matrix made up of a vast number of dimensions and negative states beyond human comprehension.
>they lost their memory
A man can lose his memory and yet live. It's not even uncommon.
Perhaps the determinism is too much effort and the leaving it to randomness is not enough effort.
It is beyond the conception of good and bad. The Pure Highest State is Pure. Good and bad are generations of mankind and their ability to say what is good and what is bad based off of circumstantial happening on the Earth.
It is good to understand another, and it is bad to hate another. To categorize everything as "good or bad" seems counter productive to some degree, at least when we are in a realm of limited understanding
But there is no such thing as a soul though.
like reading the Dr. Bronner's soap bottle desu.
That's a pretty retarded thing to say if you really think about it though.
>there is no truth, and this statement is true.
>Now, if there's a lack of experience in between reincarnations, would the cycle of birth and death feel instantaneous from an individual point of view?
thanks user this is the most insightful thing i've ever read on this board
Your experiences only have meaning and substance in the organic configuration you got after came out of your mother uterus.
Actually you start to form memories only after age of ~3.
In absence of that configuration or if the brain is altered then your experiences are altered or gone entirely if the brain activity stops.
As for the rest
But it's true, there is no need for him to argument anything.
tl;dr - just rationalize death and pretend in death you actually start to exist ( BLUEPILL )
This logic is flawed and you're running around the issue.
Just because you can't experience non-existance doesn't prove or even elude to anything you said.
If you're so hung up on the concept of soul and defining yourself as your soul; which is what you're going for right? (even if you aren't going for that, you're clearly outlinng some personal identity retention in some form or another even if it's as token as an amnesiatic soul).
Why do the people i loved who have died not try to contact me in death? Love is truely the greatest power in the world is it not?
If the people who i love don't remember me post-existance why would i even care. Why does any of your bullshit matter?
I'm just trying to reality check your mysticism death-spiral.
The fact that quantum suicide experiment might work - I believe so because quantum computers were of the same set of theoretical applications of known quantum mechanics laws - and sounded crazier than quantum suicide have been proven to work.
Hence many-worlds actually exist but then I can see how the quantum suicide experiment will just shift awareness to different worlds, but you would never experience anything non-ordinary.
But then you can't really extend this phenomena to death, that's the bullshit - because your brain in the moment of death gets messed up, the polarization goes crazy - lots of damage is done and lots of substances are released, leaving you in a narrow state of mind - that could be only experienced by other dying biological beings... so if your awareness traveled other worlds - it would essentially just travel a state of dying brains for a while then cease to be as meaningful consciousness...
No matter how you take it, death is the end of being as we are.
We fucking need to focus all our intellectual energy to solve health problems, cure aging and hopefully let go of the body by transferring consciousness into machines.
There is such a thing as a soul.
If there wasn't, people wouldn't be hiding all the valuable information about the soul from you for fake/ dumbed down spiritualization.
People literally leave this material association to spend years and years upon finding out the soul for themselves, because you can only find your own.
hi
It isn't about rationalizing death, but death is also temporary and lasts for moments, and when you die, you only "die" via the physical body/mind, but are still the same existence that you are now.
It is like opening a door. You are inside, the you pass through the doorway, now you are outside. Death is the passing through the doorway. You are the same energy of life inside the room and outside the room.
Because your body is a giant molecular structure, so when you die, the energy that sustains your life is gone, meaning the energy that cannot be created or destroyed has left the body to go somewhere else, and you are the only one who sees what happens to your own
reality is unthinkably huge. Literally inconceivable in sheer dimension.
Best check yourself cause you just wrekd yourself son, you cannot deny that which is the primary self-evident self. But first check these dubs.
>death is also temporary and lasts for moments
Yes it's a phenomena in your brain, like getting high is a phenomena - or having an orgasm is an overwhelming chemical phenomena in your brain.
But after the experience of death as a phenomena there is no coming back of what was before that - it's just gone.
>you only "die" via the physical body/mind, but are still the same existence that you are now.
What existence I am right now, improper to say "I" since if there's an existence that overwhelms me and is not my personality, my mind, my memories - neither yours then what is .. just an concept in your mind, a place holder?
Science already showed that there is no such thing as a soul, rather what is us - is the byproduct of the brain, exactly the electrical charge on top of neurons and their complex connections.
When you die the neurons remain - but the electrical activity is gone, with that you are gone.
The brain fate is just to decompose entirely breaking apart your memories and what you used to be.
Wonderland is just a way for the mind to cope with the ultimate journey of death, I can see it's easy for people to be scared of non-existence and they invent lots of irrational stories to stay calm.
After all the brain literally cannot tell reality from fiction.
So what? That doesn't make souls or reincarnation real.
>maybe somewhere in space there might be imagionationland so that means whatever I want to say is real
>reality is unthinkably huge. Literally inconceivable in sheer dimension.
And yet you claim to know with absolute certainty not just how it works, but how it was made, without showing any evidence for it. This is just another shitty argument from ignorance
>transferring consciousness into machines
lol
you're still trying to associate consciousness with a physical system when it should be plainly clear that no physical system should require what we know as "experiential awareness" or feels.
That feels are real not by contingent process but instead by a strange necessity suggest their metaphysical primacy.
The body and all physical things are dependent on the God consciousness, not the other way around.
t. Berkley
Exactly, death leaves behind the body and the mind. The energy that sustains your body is you, and leaves the body and mind after the experience of death is finished.
Science doesn't show us there is no thing as a soul, science believes that we are the mind, rather than seeing the truth that the mind is only an extension and instrument of our soul.
When science includes God, their discovery expands. When Science says "There is no God, now let us conduct our experiment" They set up the experiment in such a way that their mind will calculate no God no Soul because of how strong their belief is.
If it agrees with their opinion it is science, if not, then it is "false".
Aside from this Medical Science is also based off of Egyptian Hermeneutics which literally deals with the Alchemy of the Soul, Body and Mind.
The Wonderland for the mind to "cope" is the material manifestation in absence of the Absolute Truth and the Supreme Father.
>you claim to know with absolute certainty not just how it works, but how it was made
No I didn't.
All I claimed is that I can literally be certain I have a soul. I cannot prove it to you any more than I can prove that I put pants on this morning before my shirt; but I still know I did.
That does not preclude them from possibility, but rather strongly suggests it given the unalterable vastness of our ignorance.
>in space there might be imagionationland
No dude, all possible spaces are the material source from which imaginationland is fucking built.
We already live in that mind space you have so dubbed.
It was only a matter of time for the crank manifesto to come out.
I didn't say there's anything like a soul. Actually everything I said should be considered from a purely materialistic point of view. 'You' didn't exist, then the universe gave birth to you, then you die and go back to a state of non-existence. But everything that made 'you' is still there somewhere, even if you're scattered into 1000 winds.
>All I claimed is that I can literally be certain I have a soul.
Based on what, exactly? Also, what, according to you, would definitely disprove this?
>Based on what, exactly?
It's self evident, just like how I know I am experiencing something. I can't know whether or not my experiences match seamlessly with reality, but I can know that I am experiencing something.
Keep in mind that the simple fact that it is impossible for me to prove to you that I am having an experience of the color red as opposed to green does not mean that this is not in fact the case, or that it is beyond the scope of my own self-evident experiential knowledge.
This raises the question of how it is that if experiences aren't necessarily tied to reality, they can be in the first place. Cause it seems to me like these kinds of seemingly useless experiences shouldn't even exist within the frame of our biological machinery, and in fact before have seemed to go on independent of it. Why would a clock need to experience "clockness" in order to go on functioning.
This explanatory gap is a systematic and unresolved problem for the materialist. Not so for the metaphysical agnostic.
>disprove this
That's not how empiricism works m8.
What this guy said - I won't waste my time reading that wall of autism.
For rational thinkers it's self evident that there is not such a thing as a soul - and if there's the ideea of that inside our brains, we can just test it out with scientific method.
But all results just prove there isn't a soul as understood by philosophy or religions or by you.
>That's not how empiricism works m8.
No, but it's how falsification works.
Also, "it's self-evident" is not an argument
>For rational thinkers it's self evident that there is not such a thing as a soul
You can't speak for other people on this subject.
Maybe you're just a mongoloid untermensch who actually doesn't have a soul. Just cause you don't doesn't mean that no one else can you know.
>oh boy I'm an autist virgin and don't know what copulation or empathy feels like.
>my stunted mental and spiritual state means nobody else could possibly have different existential qualities or experiences than me!!
>But all results just prove there isn't a soul
You couldn't source that claim to save your life, stop embarrassing yourself.
>falsification
literal meme
Just because something isn't falsifiable doesn't mean is false. It just means it cannot be proven. The fact that I cannot prove I put pants on before my shirt this morning to you doesn't mean I couldn't have. An example of a non-falsifiable truth.
Only retards would say otherwise, which is what leads me to believe you must be pretending to retard.
>You can't speak for other people on this subject.
Neither can you, since your idea of 'reasoning' involves childish ad hominem attacks
I have spoken for nobody but myself, idiot.
>all results just prove there isn't a soul
Give me one source you patzer.
OP here. As I said in an earlier post I'm thinking along materialistic lines here. I don't believe in a soul that's beyond your physical body, but I believe something like a soul could be reborn eventually within another body; even though it's just a product of the brain, given it's possible that the parts that made up you in the past can meet eachother again.
>literal meme
For a meme, it sure brings very consistent results, unlike your endless and pointless wordwanking. Also, stop it with the namecalling, it makes you look very immature. Then again, so does the word 'brainlet', but luckily, you've stopped using that pathetic term.
I think the core of what I'm trying to say is: With an infinite number of on going events everything that's possible is likely to occur. Now it stands to debate what's possible. Maybe the universe just breaks at some point. So I suppose one question is if the universe can move in cycles.
Gee what a poignant defense.
Look at that keen deflection as you bitch about the top bantz itt.
I really fucking hate when people pretend to know things. You just don't have a leg to stand on.
>any planet outside the lightspeed radial distance from earth cannot possibly exist because it's existence cannot currently be falsified.
>of course there's no way you could have put pants on before your shirt this morning!! I know for certain that you couldn't have!!
I don't disagree with you - but I don't feel capable of answering you right now, I've reached the word limit then deleted everything ( twice ).
I kept appealing to irrational thinking and projected my hopes and my emotions.
For now I try to keep it simple, my tiny brain can't comprehend everything.
>extracurricular insults mean any arguments associated with them are suddenly invalid
LOL
