Because infinities real, death less daunting?

[Thorham]

Is there a particular avenue of investigation, that you think would be fruitful?

 

It's not necessarily easy. Some people roll into it, while others try for years and find nothing. I would tell you to try and find a good master and start occult training, but that sounds a little extreme perhaps. Maybe start with doing online research, but then the problem becomes what's real and what's not.

[Strange]

Bingo. You don't even consider the possibility that paranormal phenomena exist.

 

Good guess. But wrong.

 

To you and many others it's just some kind of fiction, unworthy of any research.

 

Nope. So that's 2 down.

 

Thanks for playing.

 

No evidence? Says who?

 

Scientists who have looked into it.

 

Why expect evidence to be thrown into your lap if it exists?

 

I don't. But because I used to be very interested in the subject, I have read about a lot of scientific research. Every now and again another potentially interesting result comes up and proves to be something completely mundane.

 

But feel free to post some peer-reviewed research that demonstrates the existence of paranormal abilities.

 

If you are just going to insist that it exists but is secret, then I will say the same is true for invisible pink unicorns.

We are all in love with our "brains", but the idea that the brain produces awareness simply does not hold water. I must have explained this a hundred times, and no one has been able to dispute it: All life is sentient, which means that all life is aware, but all life does not have a brain. These are FACTS.

 

Those are not FACTS, they are unsupported assertions.

The University of Virginia has information, and I think that a University in Phoenix studies some of the paranormal. There are lots of investigations by reputable sources worldwide.

 

Please provide some references to peer-reviewed published research that supports your claims.

[Thorham]

Good guess. But wrong.

Okay, my bad.

 

Scientists who have looked into it.

Scientists who obviously don't know paranormal phenomena exist. See the problem?

 

I don't. But because I used to be very interested in the subject, I have read about a lot of scientific research. Every now and again another potentially interesting result comes up and proves to be something completely mundane.

If you want to know about this you have investigate it yourself.

[Strange]

Scientists who obviously don't know paranormal phenomena exist. See the problem?

 

No, I don't see the problem. Firstly, some of those scientists are keen to find evidence of paranormal phenomena (that is why they do the research). Secondly, being good scientists they use robust experimental techniques and so what they "want" is irrelevant.

 

If you want to know about this you have investigate it yourself.

 

So we are back to: if there is no evidence, I am not going to waste my time on it. You can't provide any evidence. I have looked for evidence. Until some turns up, I will assume there is no such thing.

 

But would you like to buy an invisible pink unicorn as a pet?

[Phi for All]

It's baffling to me how people hear over and over that science is focused on evidence, but then bitch when a counter-claim is dismissed for lack of it. Why is this such a hard hurdle to jump?

 

I keep picturing these people jumping up and down, flapping arms and waiving hands, screaming "It's real, it's REAL!" while the scientist sits calmly asking for evidence in support. They just keep jumping, and the scientist just keeps asking.

 

And nobody learns anything.

[tar]

Thorham,

 

I don't think it is hard to imagine patterns that are not really caused by what you imagine.

 

I do not think that hiring a master to tell me impossible stuff is really the way to go here.

 

One of the hallmarks of science is that if I discover a pattern and understand the cause and effect of it, I can set it up to happen again.

 

Such is something about the world I can then describe to you, how to set it up to happen again.

 

Or at least describe to you where to look to see what I saw. The Sun rises every day in the East...maybe not above the Artic circle, but the position of the Earth, in relation to the Sun is something that is evident to everybody that looks.

 

Paranormal stuff is not normal stuff. It is imaginary stuff applied to reality. Like Thor banging his hammer every time you hear thunder. The thunder is evident, but Thor is made up.

 

This thread is about endless possibilities. But the possible combinations of images in our heads are not, in my estimation, where the endless possibilities should be counted. They are real, in the sense that the synaptic connections really are occurring, but to the extent that reality has to fit together, and every action has to have an equal and opposite reaction, the patterns in the brain do not have to work. Things can work in your mind that can not actually work out in reality. The waking world is very certain in this regard. A thing gets destroyed or dies and it is no longer manifest. In the dream world, you get a second chance and a third and a fourth. You can put things together in odd ways and suffer no consequences.

 

Paranormal stuff, is by definition, not normal stuff. It is not responsive to the rules of the waking world. If it were to actually be real, waking world stuff, then there would be rules by which it went, that we could discover and share with each other, and it would be normal stuff.

 

Regards, TAR

[Thorham]

I should've known better, but I do it time and time again

[Gees]

Tar;

 

Please consider:

 

Gee,

 

I have not read Critique of Pure Reason through, but there is plenty in the first chapters that would suggest that Kant thought out, rather systematically and logically, what is required to make a judgement. It is not an assumption that it takes a human brain to have a human thought, or to consider that language has meaning, and that when you talk about a tree or I talk about a tree, we both know what it is we are talking about.

 

Agreed. But it is an assumption to think that mind, consciousness, and brain are the same thing. The only evidence that mind and consciousness are in the brain, is the same evidence that could be used to prove that everyone that I talk to on my cell phone is actually inside my cell phone. Since we are pretty sure that these people are not in my cell phone, it is difficult for me to accept this evidence as conclusive.

 

It is also an assumption to think that thought is consciousness. We can not think ourselves aware; if we could then computers would be conscious. Since all things that are conscious have a sense of self and survival instincts, if computers were conscious, then they would be trying to take over the world. We would be living in one of those bad horror flicks.

 

I was talking about mind and consciousness; you were talking about brain and thought; the assumption was that we were talking about the same thing.

 

How do you pretend though to know how to be something other than a human being?

 

I have no idea what you are talking about here. The idea seems silly.

 

When we talk philosophy, I assume we mean to talk person to person, and although trees can be companions in life and reality, they are hard to talk to.

 

Let's forget about the talking to and language ideas and just think about the "companions" idea. Can a person be companions with a coffee cup? Not unless they are insane or maybe very young. We can only feel companionship with something that is alive. Why is that? Before you give a flippant answer, actually consider this idea. If you and a squid were the only life forms left on this planet, that squid would become very important to you. You could kill it and eat it so that you would survive a while longer, but then you would be alone. It would be a struggle for you to decide on either isolation or hunger -- neither being preferable.

 

What is it that other life offers us that is so very important? How does this exchange of feeling work?

 

I don't. But because I used to be very interested in the subject, I have read about a lot of scientific research. Every now and again another potentially interesting result comes up and proves to be something completely mundane.

 

See my answer to Phi for All below.

 

Those are not FACTS, they are unsupported assertions.

 

Oh. My apologies. I do not like to give false information, so since this is a Science center and you are a scientist, please teach me. Which life forms or species are not sentient? And how do we know they are alive if they are not sentient? Are you saying that daffodils have brains like we do, so they would also have minds and thoughts?

 

Thank you in advance for the information.

 

Please provide some references to peer-reviewed published research that supports your claims.

 

Give me another day or so to gather some information. In the meantime, please provide references to any valid research on "invisible pink unicorns".

 

It's baffling to me how people hear over and over that science is focused on evidence, but then bitch when a counter-claim is dismissed for lack of it. Why is this such a hard hurdle to jump?

 

And nobody learns anything.

 

It is not so baffling if you understand it. There is a two-fold problem that generally prevents productive discussion. The first part of the problem is in the definition of evidence. Science has their own definition, which generally means peer reviewed, published, evidence that can be tested through the scientific method. Evidence can also be testimony, experience, and observation, which would not necessarily comply with the rigid requirements of science -- but is still evidence.

 

The second part of the problem is obvious to anyone who looks at it. Science studies objectivity; consciousness IS subjectivity. There is no subjectivity without consciousness; there is no consciousness without subjectivity -- as far as we know. So when science tries to study consciousness, they are actually trying to study subjectivity objectively -- which can quickly become ridiculous, as it is unreasonable to expect subjectivity to bind itself to the rules of objectivity. This is why philosophy studies consciousness, because philosophy studies the objective and the subjective.

 

But philosophy has been wasting its time on the Monism v Dualism debate for more than a thousand years. This debate argues science's opinion that consciousness comes from matter, the brain, against religion's opinion that consciousness comes from "God". For myself, I have come to the conclusion that both, science and religion, are partially right and partially wrong.

 

Mostly because of the advances in science, we now understand reality a lot better than we did before, so if we throw out the old "brain", "God", and "thought" ideas about consciousness, I think that we finally may be able to understand what consciousness really is and how it works.

 

Gee

[tar]

Gee,

 

I don't know what happened to Ganz, nor if our discussion is approaching the ideas of sentience and consciousness transferral and such that he/she was interested in talking about in regards to infinity and death.

 

But about the squid, and subjectivity, one of the ideas about consciousness that is important to cede early on, is the "theory of mind". That is, that another person is not an objective lump of brain material, but in possession of a mind, and consciousness, same in general, as the mind and consciousness that you personally possess.

 

Not so, with a squid. The squid has life and in this is victorious over entropy same as you are and I am, but does not have the use of language enough to talk about his/her/its experience of the world.

 

Regards, TAR

[DevilSolution]

Only 2 things are infinite, the universe and i forget the other......

 

 

But would you like to buy an invisible pink unicorn as a pet?

 

We do trade? Air guitar...pink unicorn? actually never mind im not into my little pony......

[Strange]

Only 2 things are infinite, the universe and i forget the other......

 

Except we don't know if the universe is infinite or not. And we don't know what the other thing is. So maybe nothing is infinite.

[DevilSolution]

 

Except we don't know if the universe is infinite or not. And we don't know what the other thing is. So maybe nothing is infinite.

 

You dont know what the other thing is?

[Strange]

 

You dont know what the other thing is?

 

You said you had forgotten. I'm not a mind reader, especially when the mind is empty.

[DevilSolution]

Its a famous eistein quote, except the he says "only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and im not sure about the former".

[Gees]

Tar;

 

We have worked in a thread together that ended up being over 15 pages, yet in all that time, we never had a "meeting of the minds". After reviewing your last post, it occurs to me that, again, we are talking past one another, and I begin to doubt my ability to convey my meaning to you.

 

If I remember correctly, you told me that your Father was trained in analytic psychology, and maybe worked in that field. So it is my thought that if I explained my ideas in a way that an analyst could understand, and you showed it to him, maybe he could explain what I can not. Whether or not he agreed with my ideas, he would still be able to understand my reasoning, so this could work. Maybe.

 

Please consider:

 

The rational aspect of mind, the Ego, is the part that we call our mind and the part that is directed by us. This is where we think our thoughts, plan our days, and direct our activities. This aspect of mind accepts information from our five senses, interprets, organizes, and processes this information, while relegating unneeded information to the unconscious aspect of mind. The primary purpose of this aspect of mind is to help us navigate physical reality.

 

Most people think of their minds as being one whole thing, and they think that this one whole thing is the rational aspect of mind -- that this is their "self". Kind of like, "God" drops in a soul/mind when we are born, or conceived, and removes it when we die, but this idea is not supported in evidence. Although it feels like the rational aspect of mind is the "self", we do not even fully develop a rational aspect of mind until we are seven years old. Anyone who has worked with children knows that they have a very clear idea of "self" way before seven years old, so the rational mind can not be the "self". I believe that Dr. Blanco found five distinct layers in the unconscious mind, and I don't even know if that included what is known as the Id -- the instinctive aspect of mind. So mind does not possess the wholeness that it feels like it possesses.

 

Although the rational and unconscious aspects of mind are clearly distinct from one another, they trade information back and forth, so the unconscious aspect of mind holds our experiences, memories, habits, and a great deal more. This may be why it is called the Super Ego, as it has information that the Ego has, but it also holds information that the Ego does not have access to.

 

The unconscious aspect of mind is not rational and works primarily through emotion and feeling. The only things that I know about the workings of the unconscious mind are that it understands more and less, it recognizes difference and sameness, it recognizes self and other, and it organizes information through relationships. It was Dr. Blanco, who first realized that there is a logic in the unconscious aspect of mind; all you have to do is eliminate time to find the logic.

 

Example: If Mary is Ruth's mother, then Ruth is Mary's mother.

 

Of course, the previous statement is ridiculous and impossible, as they can not possibly be each other's mother -- time would not allow it. But if you remove the idea of time, then what is left is the relationship, so "mother" is the relationship between Mary and Ruth. As I stated before, the unconscious mind "thinks" about things in relation to other things, not in relation to time.

 

So if we think about the prior information and apply it to death, what do we find? The first thing we find is that the rational aspect of mind could serve no purpose after death. It no longer has senses to give it information and does not need to navigate physical reality. It would be unnecessary, superfluous, and useless, so it is unlikely that it would follow us in death. If we no longer have the rational aspect of mind, doesn't that mean that we would not be aware or conscious of our death? Quite possibly; it might be like a nice long sleep, but I can not give assurances.

 

So does that mean that the "self" would die? Not necessarily since the rational aspect of mind is not the "self". There is nothing about life that suggests beginnings and endings; it all suggests cycles, so it would be an assumption to guess that consciousness does not also cycle. We actually have to kill and eat conscious life in order to maintain conscious life, so although one could look at eating as an ending for one life, it is also a cycle of life maintaining life.

 

So if any part of mind exists after death, it would be some level, or levels, of the unconscious mind. This is why I study emotion because the unconscious works through emotion, and emotion works between things. It has not escaped my notice that emotion works between things and the unconscious "thinks" by noting relationships -- so they work very similarly, and both respond strongly to bonding. Bonding is something that we know very little about.

 

In studies of reincarnation, it is interesting to note that the few things that are remembered all relate to bonding and the unconscious aspect of mind. The few people who remember mostly remember their names, their families, and their homes, but also retain their likes and dislikes and their habits, which is unusual. A person who smokes too much and hates green beans, may reincarnate to be a person who loves the smell of smoke and hates the smell of green beans cooking. So we should all be careful with our vices, as they may kick us in the butt in another lifetime.

 

It is my opinion that when people experience the paranormal, what is really happening is that the rational aspect of mind is getting a glimpse of something that is normally reserved for the unconscious aspect of mind. The paranormal works through emotion, and I know that it is real because I have experienced it. Mind is very much under the influence of emotion, and there is evidence that strong emotion can set or change the parameters of mind. So I suspect that emotion can distort the boundaries of the conscious and unconscious aspects of mind, either temporarily or permanently.

 

Also consider that "God" could be called the President of the Paranormal Club. Religions study the paranormal and emotion. Although some would dispute it, the reality is that some very great minds have studied religion, and they have come to the conclusion that it is what you believe, rather than what you think, that will guide you after death. If the unconscious aspect of mind is all that follows after death, then this would be very good advice, as what you believe is based in emotion. What you think would be as irrelevant as the rational aspect of mind -- after death.

 

So are the possibilities infinite? Probably not, but there are a lot more than I would like to have to count.

 

Gee,

 

I don't know what happened to Ganz, nor if our discussion is approaching the ideas of sentience and consciousness transferral and such that he/she was interested in talking about in regards to infinity and death.

 

But about the squid, and subjectivity, one of the ideas about consciousness that is important to cede early on, is the "theory of mind". That is, that another person is not an objective lump of brain material, but in possession of a mind, and consciousness, same in general, as the mind and consciousness that you personally possess.

 

Not so, with a squid. The squid has life and in this is victorious over entropy same as you are and I am, but does not have the use of language enough to talk about his/her/its experience of the world.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Squid are actually rather intelligent, and some species actually hunt in packs, so they communicate and work together. This is language. It is only your assumption that they can not share their experiences with each other.

 

Gee

 

 

 

To the click-it club: If you don't like something that I said, then have the balls to make a response. The only thing that I will learn from a down vote, is that you are too inarticulate to state your ideas, or too cowardly to put them up for criticism. This is philosophy, not a sporting event.

[tar]

Gee,

 

I did not know about the squid hunts, but remain of the mind that talking philosophy with a squid would have its limitations.

 

My dad and I already have spoken about reincarnation and he seems to be more of the mind that it is not a real possibility than that it is indicated through Freudian psychology, as you suggest.

 

I don't think we talk past each other, as much as I think we don't agree with each other's conclusions.

 

You speak of emotion and the subconscious as if it is magic stuff. Stuff of gods and spirits and happening outside normal, sharable experience. I tend to think that the regular, normal universe we share, that is evident as the waking world, is quite amazing, long lived, and immense enough to suffice as quite old enough and big enough to contain the biggest and most numerous items we can think of. We don't need magic to flirt with the idea of infinity.

 

I do however feel a bond with that which existed prior my birth and "have a feeling" that the bond will not be broken, at my death. Like the ripples in a pond, that continue to announce the pebble, long after it settles to the bottom, I figure my motion and energy will reverberate around the waking world, long after I stop functioning as a human. Consider this, with no magic required. This thread could be read by a researcher at a Mars settlement in the year 2118 by a young woman interested in early 21st century philosophy. Hello there, young lady...there is no limit in time to how long copies of this thread will be available to people capable of reading English. And the copies could be taken into space, beyond the Heliosphere, and survive even the death of our Sun...and future scientists may well understand what kind of pattern could be laid that would survive a black hole and construct a message that could be understood by a conscious mind, in the universe that begins when this one is collected back into a black hole singularity and develops a planet with life and consciousness...again.

 

Regards, TAR

[imatfaal]

Its a famous eistein quote, except the he says "only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and im not sure about the former".

 

Actually it is fairly well agreed that Einstein never said that - it is quoted in a psychobabble psychotherapy text but no-one really believes it was AE, especially as the same author, in latter works, removed the attribution.

 

"La bêtise humaine est la seule chose qui donne une idée de l'infini" - Ernest Renan seems to be a possible original source

To the click-it club: If you don't like something that I said, then have the balls to make a response. The only thing that I will learn from a down vote, is that you are too inarticulate to state your ideas, or too cowardly to put them up for criticism. This is philosophy, not a sporting event.

 

Or they cannot put aside the time to engage in a drawn out discussion, or for many other reasons which would be off-topic to post about

 

The reputation system is there for members to make immediate and anonymous marks For or Against a post and some use it for just that; your imputation of cowardice or inability to make an argument is presumptive and, I think, incorrect. However - if you wish to make a thread about reputation please do it in the Suggestions Forum; preferably after reading a couple of the long threads we have already had on this topic.

[Gees]

Tar;

 

Please consider:

 

Gee,

 

I did not know about the squid hunts, but remain of the mind that talking philosophy with a squid would have its limitations.

 

"Talking philosophy with a squid"? Is that what we are talking about?

 

If I remember correctly, you stated that you felt companionship with a tree and talked to trees -- a Chestnut in particular. I picked up on the word companion because it seemed to me to be on topic as companionship requires a connection that is outside of the body, just like consciousness in death would be considered outside of the body. I then set up a scenario where the choice would be isolation or companionship with a squid, and chose the squid because it seemed to be one of the least companionable species that I could think of at the time. The scenario was meant to show that isolation or bonding between life forms is very relevant to life, and that these connections seem to be outside of the body.

 

You stated that a squid is not very intelligent. I disagreed. Now we are talking about "talking philosophy with a squid".

 

If I am following your reasoning here, it seems that you are talking about communicating with other life forms, but that communication is through language. I am also talking about communication with other life forms, but the communication is through feeling. We are aware of other life; we know that isolation from other life can damage us; we know that bonding with other life can make us healthier and happier, but none of this requires language or talking to other life.

 

You are talking about language and the rational mind; I am talking about feeling and the unconscious mind. Hence we are talking past one another.

 

Also consider that you appear to think that trees are more intelligent than squid. I know of no evidence that supports this assumption.

 

My dad and I already have spoken about reincarnation and he seems to be more of the mind that it is not a real possibility than that it is indicated through Freudian psychology, as you suggest.

 

"Whether or not he agreed with my ideas, he would still be able to understand my reasoning, so this could work."

 

Please review the bold italicized statement above that was taken from my post. Note that I do not ask for agreement, but only ask for understanding as to my reasoning. If my reasoning is invalid, then that would be worth discussing and considering.

 

I was raised as a Christian and for at least 50 years, I knew that reincarnation was some mystical eastern belief. I would never have even considered the possibility of it, except that my research and studies of consciousness sent me in that direction. The reality is this; one has to either accept science's explanation and ignore anything that does not fit within their parameters of what consciousness is, or one has to accept "God". Neither explanation satisfied my mind.

 

Because I have experienced some of what people call "paranormal", I included these studies in my research. I have found no evidence to support the idea that reincarnation can not happen, only religious belief that it does not happen, but have found at least some evidence that it does happen. Anyone who was raised Christian and did not have my experiences or do the same research would believe that reincarnation is not possible. That does not mean that it is not possible.

 

I did not suggest that reincarnation is indicated by Freudian psychology. That is an unbelievable corruption of my words. Psychology indicates reincarnation as much as the road in front of my house indicates that I am at the grocery store. I am not. Actually, I am housebound, but if I wanted to get to the grocery store, I would probably make use of the road. I am talking about paths; you are talking about destinations. I am talking about logic and reasoning; you are talking about conclusions and theories.

 

Hence, again, we are talking past each other.

 

I don't think we talk past each other, as much as I think we don't agree with each other's conclusions.

 

It would be a little difficult to agree on conclusions while talking about different things.

 

You speak of emotion and the subconscious as if it is magic stuff. Stuff of gods and spirits and happening outside normal, sharable experience. I tend to think that the regular, normal universe we share, that is evident as the waking world, is quite amazing, long lived, and immense enough to suffice as quite old enough and big enough to contain the biggest and most numerous items we can think of. We don't need magic to flirt with the idea of infinity.

Magic is for children and the incredibly ignorant. Why do you bring it up?

 

Have you ever heard of Thales? He was a philosopher thousands of years ago, and he was fascinated with magnets. Why do you think that was? Did he think that maybe magnets were magic? I suppose that a lot of people in his time would have thought they were magic -- they look like magic.

 

But if you know anything at all about Thales, you know that he was fascinated with how things work -- what causes the effect -- how things happen. So when he looked at magnets, he knew that something caused the attraction and repulsion that makes a rock into a magnet -- something caused the force that was between them. In his time, he could not know what that cause was; hence, the life long fascination.

 

Like Thales, I like to understand how things work. I do not believe in magic, so when I study consciousness, I am trying to discover how it works -- the cause and effect of it. I'll say it again real slow. I want to learn how consciousness awareness emotion bonding and mind actually work.

I do however feel a bond with that which existed prior my birth and "have a feeling" that the bond will not be broken, at my death. Like the ripples in a pond, that continue to announce the pebble, long after it settles to the bottom, I figure my motion and energy will reverberate around the waking world, long after I stop functioning as a human. Consider this, with no magic required. This thread could be read by a researcher at a Mars settlement in the year 2118 by a young woman interested in early 21st century philosophy. Hello there, young lady...there is no limit in time to how long copies of this thread will be available to people capable of reading English. And the copies could be taken into space, beyond the Heliosphere, and survive even the death of our Sun...and future scientists may well understand what kind of pattern could be laid that would survive a black hole and construct a message that could be understood by a conscious mind, in the universe that begins when this one is collected back into a black hole singularity and develops a planet with life and consciousness...again. Regards, TAR

 

This is a little too fanciful for me, but I wish you well in your infinity.

 

Gee

[tar]

Gee,

 

I think perhaps my search for how things work require linkages to the real world. Like the pheremones that various life forms release that others can and do sense and respond to. Actual chemical connections that bond people and things together. Physical realities were people give hugs and warmth and food and clothing and shelter and medical assistance to each other, that forms the bond. The safety and security of being in a symbiotic relationship.

 

Perhaps me and the squid could work something out, but the bond would have to be real and meaningful to be real and meaningful. Just me knowing the squid was the last living thing other than me would no ensure the squid knew I was the last living thing other than it, and I don't know if the psychological bond that I might feel toward the squid would be requited.

 

I appreciate you are looking for how consciousness and awareness and emotion and bonding and mind actually work, but you are looking for a "thing" that exists outside the body brain heart group, whereas I am thinking the other body brain heart group is the thing that exists outside the first. Not a bond substance. The theory of mind says that others have a mind and consciousness same as yours. This is something going on outside of your brain body heart group.

 

Regards, TAR

[ajb]

Is Ganz ever going to come back. I still want to know in what sense infinity is real!

[Daedalus]

First off, I'd like to begin this post with a little background on how I came to this question. My brother and I were discussing sentience and things of transferring consciousness, etc... Now, I know that this doesn't necessarily fall under the mathematical section but I feel infinity does. "Because infinity is real, there's an infinite amount of possibilities after death," is what he told me and it was a very objective statement. So my question is... does infinity's existence have some kind of relationship with what happens after death?

 

I have to go with AJB on this in that I also want to know in what sense infinity is real, but let's entertain a thought that I typically find comfort in thinking. Our consciousness is a result of our brains, and is therefore based upon an arrangement of matter that gives rise to our consciousness. So, when we die, that system decays and we simply exist no more. There is no after life or consciousness after death because there is no physical system to perpetuate it. Of course, I could be wrong, but it at least seems logical that if the brain no longer exists then our consciousness must also cease to exist.

 

However, let's consider that an infinite number of universes could flare into existence and be extinguished over unfathomable eons of time. Considering that I exist due to a very specific and unique arrangement of matter, then it would be mathematically possible that such an arrangement could exist again in any of these so called infinite universes. Does this type of reincarnation mean that my consciousness would indeed exist again? I'm not sure. However, because I exist, there is a physical mechanism that describes me and, if their can exist an infinite number of universes, then there should be a 100% chance that such physical mechanism can exist again long after my current physical state has decayed.

 

As unlikely as any of this may seem, I'd prefer to rationalize life after death in such a way instead of believing in a god and going to hell (lord knows I'm not right enough to exist in any form of heaven conceived by man). If this type of reincarnation exists, then I will exist again. Each time I do exist, I will have a new adventure to embark upon and a new chance to experience life that doesn't involve being bored after spending an eternity in heaven, or worse hell.

 

I find more comfort in that thought than I would find in any religion and, if I am wrong, then I won't exist again to worry about it

Edited January 18, 2016 by Daedalus

[tar]

Daedalus,

 

Sounds like a plan.

 

I figure being dead will be similar to how it was before I was born. Except perhaps the world will have a memory of me having been.

 

Regards, TAR