Three references which provide an Illuminated Understanding of this perennial dilemma.
http://www.beezone.com/death_message.html
What death requires of us
http://www.easydeathbook.com/purpose.asp
http://www.aboutadidam.org/dying_death_and_beyond/index.html

The problem with interpretation means? It can and has clearly been used to make a complete nonsense out of alleged holy scripture, then impose beliefs taken solely from the mouths of men/impostors!

Little wonder highly revised and endlessly edited to suit preferred dogma, holy books, have been subjected to holy wars/rivers of blood and claims that a preferred, selected deity, is the one true and only God.

And we'll kill/murder/maim anyone who says different!

Little wonder there's a mass exodus from traditional religion!

That said, if you would know the truth, first seek ye the Kingdom of heaven within. Quote unquote. Learn to meditate/still the conscious mind and the endless monkey chatter that is the nonstop thought process. Reading some alleged holy passage or other is not meditation! But may well be, self imposed brain washing? Particularly where ritualistic repetition, is part of the approved practice!

Know the truth and the truth will set you free!

One of those truths would appear to be, that there was no exodus from Egypt by alleged chosen people? Therefore, that myth or legend ought to be taken with a grain of salt and indeed anything that relies on it or similar myth and legend! That then is used to confirm claimed authority, power and privilege on self appointed elites!

Little wonder the master's last work was so descriptive of a very troubled mind?
Alan B.

I am past heaping scorn on those of my friends who believe in a life after death. Better to keep my own counsel on the subject. The line in the funeral ritual that calls on the faithful to look forward to being united with the Lord with a "sure and certain hope" never ceases to intrigue me. It is sort of like having a bob each way on a horse that is a certainty and you hope it will win. Why then did you also put your money on it for a place as well?

David

Scott MacInnes,

If you are going to use labels which are already understood by other people to mean something different, then it would help if you stated that at the outset.

As it stands, when you speak of ‘atheists’, you in fact only describe strong atheism (you throw philosophical naturalism in there, too); and when you speak of ‘agnostics’, you describe weak atheism (either explicit or implicit, depending on other factors):

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

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, they are two different answers to two different questions. Here’s a diagram which illustrates the difference between the two at a glance:

http://i.imgur.com/nzOxfIA.png

Theism and atheism are responses with regards to what one believes, while gnosticism and agnosticism are responses concerning knowledge.

Theism and atheism are two logical absolutes which conform to the law of the excluded middle (i.e. A, not A). Here is a sophisticated Venn diagram I put together to illustrate this more clearly:

http://i.imgur.com/LBo0WK3.png

I don’t like getting too caught up in labels, though. Labels can mean whatever people want them to mean, but you have to be able to agree on their definitions before any further discussion can be productive. And if you're going to stray from widely-accepted definitions, then this needs to be clarified first.

** But does living by such faith have any ultimate meaning or value beyond this finite existence?**

This life exists in time and space, whereas death is a timeless zone. No comparison can be made between the two.

AJPhillips.

And you didn't answer the question. Do it please.

Viz...
** But does living by such faith have any ultimate meaning or value beyond this finite existence?**

diver dan,

I didn’t realise we were all supposed to answer that question, sorry. I figured the, “Goodness knows!”, at the end of the article suggested that the author didn’t hold much hope for an answer, anyway.

And why me specifically, by the way? I don’t think anyone else has answered it, apart from you. But since you want my answer so badly, I’ll give it my best:

Does living by such faith have any ultimate meaning or value beyond this finite existence?

Firstly, it’s not actually clear to me what Scott MacInnes is referring to here when he says, “such faith”. Is he talking about religious faith? Is he referring to this “something great and indomitable about the human spirit” which he mentions just prior to asking his question? Or is he referring to the ponderings he quoted earlier in the piece?

Secondly, it’s not clear to me what he means by, “ultimate meaning or value beyond this finite existence”. For something to have an “ultimate meaning or value beyond this finite existence”, one would assume that some transcendent purpose or measurement of value (e.g. the divine) is required. But not all of us believe there is anything of the sort.

Sorry, diver dan, I can’t give you much of an answer. The author will have to clarify what exactly he’s talking about. As it stands, however, I suspect my answer would be a simple ‘no’.

Having opened death's door and had a butchers, I'm here to say, as a returned witness, there is a life after this one and where the only thing you can take with you are your memories and the love of family and friends!

That being so, it's a good idea to amass a huge store of both! But particularly the positive ones! And if you must believe in something, then believe in the mighty irrefutable truth!

Truly, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven. Quote unquote.
Alan B.

AJPhillips

Your such a slippery animal aren't you AJP. :-|

You question my interest in your answer to the question asked at the end of the article. My interest is based on the observation that you took the time and the interest to comment on this, the existential abiding question of life after death. Surely, for one short moment in worldly time, you could take this particular question at face value, and issue a "useful" answer.

The question is a simple and clear one: Both Alan B and myself both recognise it's simplicity.

Let us call "death" the part of the question describing the transition between this life and the next, (according to your personal belief system).

Q. what is your view on the next life after death, based on the belief system you hold most popular now?

diver dan,

The question was unclear and I explained in great detail why. Despite this, I still gave what I suspected my answer would be. There is nothing “slippery” about that.

<<You question my interest in your answer to the question asked at the end of the article.>>

Yes, because it made no sense, and it still makes no sense, even after your explanation.

<<My interest is based on the observation that you took the time and the interest to comment on this, the existential abiding question of life after death.>>

Only I didn't. What I did was suggest to Scott MacInnes that if he's going to use his own definitions for labels, then he should state that from the outset.

<<Surely ... you could take this particular question at face value, and issue a "useful" answer.>>

How can I when it is so unclear what the author is asking? I raised legitimate questions regarding the clarity of the question. There was no face value to take it at, and I explained why.

<<Let us call "death" the part of the question describing the transition between this life and the next, ...>>

There was no part of the question describing “death”. The author spoke of a kind of faith.

<<So, by “such faith”, the author meant “death”>>

Nope. Still don't see it. Faith has nothing to do with death, and nor do I see how the author sufficiently defined it as such.

<<Q. what is your view on the next life after death, based on the belief system you hold most popular now?>>

(That I "hold most popular"?)

That bears absolutely no relation whatsoever to what the author asked, but I'll answer it anyway:

My view is that there is no evidence for life after death.

Now, why would I evade such a simple and obvious answer?

Sorry, diver dan, but you don't get to call me “slippery” when I raise genuine concerns regarding the clarity of a question, only to pretend that it was crystal clear, and then present to me a completely different question.

Oh, I think I see it now, diver dan!

If I squint, cock my head to the side, and hold my tongue a certain way,

“Does living by such faith have any ultimate meaning or value beyond this finite existence?”

could be interpreted to be,

“Does a belief in the afterlife have any grounding in reality?”

If that's what the author meant, then his question was so poorly worded that I cannot bring myself to take any responsibility for the confusion - not even out of politeness or as a gesture of goodwill - and can only assume that an otherwise-articulate author was attempting to sound insightful and give his question an air of profundity that simply isn't there.

No, again, I don't believe there is life after death. There is simply no evidence for it. Near-death and out-of-body experiences have perfectly rational, neurological explanations.

AJPhillips.

If slippery offends, then I'll rephrase it; I have long ago observed you fanatical attachment to precise English . :-))

But following on from your explanation of the vagaries of the authors question, and your final relenting to answering an interpretation of the question (in question), suggested by myself, I want to challenge your answer now!

A.
**No, again, I don't believe there is life after death. There is simply no evidence for it. Near-death and out-of-body experiences have perfectly rational, neurological explanations.**

Q.
Since no living person once dead, (eg blown to pieces on the battle field type dead), has returned to tell the tale, would you consider that it may be possible for an eternal existence after physical death, for the part of us that is the consciousness ?

Be careful how you answer this question.

Thanks for the rephrasing there, diver dan. It’s much appreciated.

Normally, I would associate slipperiness with a deliberate attempt to deceive. If I sounded a little cranky, it was only because I spent more time on my first response to you there than I normally would with most other comments I post on OLO, in an attempt to give the most considered response I possibly could, with what little I felt I had to work with.

Now to your next question…

<<Since no living person once dead, (eg blown to pieces on the battle field type dead), has returned to tell the tale, would you consider that it may be possible for an eternal existence after physical death, for the part of us that is the consciousness ?>>

Well, I can’t say that it's NOT possible. After all, how could I know that?

But is it possible?

I guess, to the extent that it’s possible Russell’s Teapot may be out there orbiting the sun, or to the extent that the big bang could have been triggered by universe-creating pixies.

Who knows?

The time to believe something, however, is when there is evidence.

What we can know to some degree of certainty, though, is that (contrary to the claims of mystics - both theistic and atheistic alike) our consciousness is not a separate entity independent of our physical bodies. Suggesting this is the fact that when a person suffers from a brain injury severe enough, everything that makes that person who they are can be reset: their personality, their memory, their ability to form new memories, their preferences, and their desires.

The fact that our consciousness can be altered so drastically by the state of our brain, suggests that it is unlikely that our consciousness lives on after our physical bodies die.

AJPhillips

Archaic is our fascination with consciousness. There are people in our lives we wish not to be parted from, so we all understand the fascination for holding onto a hope of being reunited in another world outside the physical one.
Of course there are other motivations for holding such a hope for eternal life; purely selfish ones.

I note the points you make with interest. Others are; at what stage does consciousness enter the body? Where does it originate? Why is science so baffled by its existence and unable to pin-point its dwelling place in the brain, (or the body for that matter)? Is consciousness actually an aura around the body itself and not brain related? Does nature (the universe), have ownership of our consciousness? Why does the physical body guard so jealously its company, only to be parted at death? Does consciousness actually carry the emotions of love and hate for example, leaving our brains to calculate outcomes from those emotions, as would a computer compute in a physical sense? Do we actually carry the seed of consciousness from our parents? And comically, am I my own grandpa, through sharing part of his consciousness handed down through birth?

There is an endless array of questions relating to consciousness, but all culminate in who are we, and why do we exist. These questions are faith related, or otherwise enlist a faith in science alone, to provide explanations to the eternal question of life and death. One thing for sure, there is no one answer.

Comment.

diver dan,

I wouldn't describe our fascination with consciousness as “archaic”. It’s still very relevant today.

As for your ponderings regarding consciousness, I think my point regarding the effects of brain injury put many of them into perspective…

<<… at what stage does consciousness enter the body?>>

That’s assuming it “enters” the body at all. Going back to my points regarding brain injury, it is reasonable to conclude that consciousness simply emerges as the brain develops in the womb.

<<Why is science so baffled by its existence and unable to pinpoint its dwelling place in the brain, (or the body for that matter)?>>

I don’t know that science is trying to pinpoint a dwelling for consciousness. I think it’s generally accepted that the consciousness “dwells” in the brain. Again, the effects of brain injury suggest this. It sounds to me like you are conflating consciousness and the concept of a soul here. More importantly, our inability to scientifically explain something is not evidence of a supernatural explanation. Such an assertion would be a fallacious appeal to ignorance.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignorance

Every time humans explained a phenomenon with the supernatural, it turned out that there was a perfectly rational explanation. There is nothing special about this point in time that should compel us to assume that the unknowns from here on in must necessarily have mystical explanations for them, or that they will never be explained. Such thinking is giving up, and I see this from mystics all the time.

<<Does consciousness actually carry the emotions of love and hate for example …>>

I suppose that depends on what you mean by “carry”. Emotions are chemical responses. Our consciousnesses appear to both trigger these chemical responses, and respond to the feelings that result from them. Which then raises the question: if our consciousnesses are independent entities, then why would they bother tinkering with our physical bodies in such a way?

If you’re interested in this sort of stuff, then I would recommend some of Dan Dennett’s books and lectures. He has some interesting thoughts on consciousness.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness

AJPhillips

You and I must agree on at least one thing, that the perception of our individual conscious worlds may never entirely line up with each other.
Mine is an empirical view of life in general, its all that time ever permitted: But I'm not disappointed.

When I say consciousness, I mean by that a consciousness of self, as opposed to conscious perceptions. A hypnotist can easily alter others perceptions, but those " other" still remain Jack and Jill, as before hypnosis. Jack and Jill will perceive differently but are aware of their consciousness, irrespective of their view of the physical world.

That is the perception people have towards religion. A perception of life through the eyes of religious doctrine. I for example, was born into a Christian society. It was a natural awakening to life viewed through the lens of Christian belief, learned over time. Hypnotised you might say, into a conscious world of religious thought, learning right from wrong based on the law of the Christian God, (coincidently the same God as the Jews and Islamists alike).

You see, I'm describing conscious awareness (of self), as opposed to conscious perceptions. (Re; your video link).
Not an awareness of good bad or ugly, but an awareness of existing inside a personal body.

And yes, I would put the Soul in the conscious awareness basket.

I’m not sure what you mean there, diver dan.

<<… the perception of our individual conscious worlds may never entirely line up with each other.>>

Do you just mean that we’ll always disagree? If so, then sure. For so long as you believe in a god, we will always disagree. At least until there is some reliable evidence for a god.

<<Mine is an empirical view of life in general, its all that time ever permitted:>>

This statement makes no sense to me whatsoever, sorry. What does time have to do with an empirical view of life “in general”, and how do you reconcile an empirical view of life (whatever that means) with religious belief?

<<When I say consciousness, I mean by that a consciousness of self, as opposed to conscious perceptions.>>

So do I. I’m talking about consciousness in every respect.

<<A hypnotist can easily alter others perceptions, but those " other" still remain Jack and Jill, as before hypnosis.>>

Physically? Sure. So what? Switching from brain injury to hypnosis doesn’t get you around the issues I raised concerning brain injury, if that’s what you’re trying to do.

<<That is the perception people have towards religion. A perception of life through the eyes of religious doctrine…>>

Okay, now you’ve completely lost me. I have no idea what your indoctrination has to do with anything, sorry.

Perhaps you should just get to the point you’re trying to make? If it’s that consciousness is evidence for a god (and it always is), then just say so and we’ll take it from there.

<<You see, I'm describing conscious awareness (of self), as opposed to conscious perceptions.>>

Yes, I’m referring to all consciousness. The dilemma I realised regarding brain injury applies to all consciousness, and I have explained why in great detail.

<<And yes, I would put the Soul in the conscious awareness basket.>>

Okay, but until you have evidence for the soul, there is no rational reason to do this.

Sorry, diver dan, but all you are doing is fallaciously appealing to ignorance.

I was just thinking, diver dan. What about split-brain patients who develop two distinct personalities existing simultaneously?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFJPtVRlI64

Do such people then have two consciousnesses? And if so, how does something - which you suggest is a mystical entity, independent of our physical bodies - become altered by physical changes? If the consciousness can be altered by physical changes, what reason is there to believe that it will live on after the body dies? And if the consciousness lives on after physical death, does it then revert to its original state?

What about the soul? If you “put the soul in the conscious awareness basket” (which I suspect is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to mystery), then does that mean that a split-brain patient develops a second soul? And if so, do both souls live on after the physical body dies, or does one disappear?

What about when one personality is a Christian while the other is an atheist (as has happened before)? Does the Christian soul go to heaven while the atheist soul burns in hell? And which one was the one planted into the fertilised ovum at conception? Or does that one no longer exist anymore?

Sorry, diver dan, but there is simply no reason to believe that there is anything mystical about consciousness. All the evidence suggests that it is a direct product of the brain.

First I like to thank the author for his thoroughness and for introducing us to the radical honesty of Holloway.

Admirably honest and genuine as he was, Holloway's conclusion was limited by Western thought, particularly by the concept as if life is superior to death, existence to non-existence - otherwise, there would be nothing "unjust" about the "nothingness that awaits us".

Same for the quest for meaning, where it is assumed that X cannot be worthy unless it means Y. The active Western mind finds it difficult to grasp purposelessness. Further, even if there was a purpose, but one which could not be intellectually understood, for the Western mind that would be equivalent to purposelessness.

What we are (question 2) needs no justification and where we come from and go to (questions 1 and 3) is not unknown either: we go there and come back practically every night, when in deep sleep. As we have no memory, no proof, the Western mind finds it unbearably meaningless, thus unworthy - so it desperately looks for some other explanation.

Contrary to the active Western thought that feels compelled to create (thus it is was in the West where worship of the Creator has developed), defiantly if necessary, the key for making peace with ourselves, is not to discover something new about ourselves - but to weed out whatever false conceptions and prejudices we may have, regarding what we supposedly are and what we supposedly ought to achieve (including having a good time, as in the case of nihilism).

Once those misconceptions and prejudices are removed, our true identity is automatically exposed and shines, then we awaken to the reality that we are none other than God, lacking nothing, totally self-sufficient, without a need to achieve anything, come from anywhere or go anywhere. We are not the watchers of the world, we are not struggling to gather some fragments of its reflected light - it is our own infinite light which shines and illuminates everything.

Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

AJP...

I'm not attempting to convince you of any particular way of thought at all. I don't care what you personally believe, but I am interested in how you conclude your beliefs outside of evidence based conclusions. Thus the interest in consciousness where little evidence outside of pure speculation, can nail it down.

I think this is one very big reason for the success of religions all. The whole gambit of consciousness is a free for all.

I'm reading your points mentioned with interest. I'm struggling with time to do them justice; thus I'm hammering on with my own thoughts on the subject.
I don't think it remarkable for one body to possess two egos. What of Siamese twins? IE one body two souls, it proves nothing more than the conundrum that defining of consciousness is.

Where is your proof that consciousness is finite? There is a big school of thought says it isn't.
If it isn't, then it must dwell outside of our universe, which is finite.

Keep engaged here, I'm bound to get some free time sooner than later

AJPhillips.

My view of consciousness is that it is a universal force yet to be identified. Science has a long way to go in defining it and isolating it.
The future of space travel depends on it. Physically transporting ourselves through space in rocket ships will always remain in a nineteen fifties science fiction novel: It's laughable.

But we can theoretically travel to any point in the universe, since consciousness like gravity, is everywhere in the universe.

The reason science cannot identify human consciousness, is simply because it is not peculiar to the human race.
Like air, every living thing in the universe shares the same consciousness to a greater or lesser degree, we breath it in, so to speak.

Don't laugh, there once was a time before gravity was identified as a force.

Religions could give us a clue. There is a master of consciousness called God. This indicates a centre of the force, like the sun is the centre of the solar system.
To speculate further, the same consciousness could be common across other universes outside of our own. Anything is possible, and it may be transportable across other realms non physical, (religions Heaven and Hell).

The design feature of consciousness is for natures ends, (whatever they are; that needs to be defined also).like the force of the wind, we need to stick a windmill in front of it and harness its energy.

Maybe consciousness is the missing link in the puzzle that balances the physical universes(s).
OK, name one animal that is not welded down the middle to form two identical sides.

Go with that futuristic supposition AJP...

diver dan,

I’m not under the impression that you’re trying to convince me of anything. Although, I would have no problem if you were.

<<… I am interested in how you conclude your beliefs outside of evidence based conclusions.>>

I hope I never believe anything without evidence. Please tell me if you spot me doing it.

<<Thus the interest in consciousness where little evidence outside of pure speculation, can nail it down.>>

There is still evidence, though. I’ve spent the last few posts discussing it.

<<The whole gambit of consciousness is a free for all.>>

Not at all. If there is no evidence either way, it does not then become reasonable to simply select whatever belief takes your fancy.

Take, for example, a jar of Skittles. The number of Skittles in that jar is either odd or even, but we would have no sure way of knowing either way. Just because we have no way of knowing, however, that does not then make it reasonable to assert one way or the other. The only reasonable position to take is the default position of rejecting both claims until a burden of proof has been met.

<<I don't think it remarkable for one body to possess two egos. What of Siamese twins?>>

Siamese twins are two people with two brains. They are in no way analogous to the dilemmas I’ve raised.

<<IE one body two souls …>>

What about one body and one brain, which is what I’ve been talking about?

<<Where is your proof that consciousness is finite?>>

I don’t have any proof as such, but I did provide evidence to suggest that it is. Please see my points regarding brain injury and split-brain patients.

<<There is a big school of thought says [consciousness] isn't [finite].>>

Yes, it’s call religion, and it is yet to meet its burden of proof on any of its supernatural claims.

Pushing claims outside the realm of investigation doesn’t eliminate the need for evidence. It merely renders any position on the matter impossible. Yet, as your second post makes clear, you've taken one anyway.

He is off the planet. You are wasting your time even entering into a reasoned discussion with him, because he is an unreasonable entity.

David

AJPhillips

**..If there is no evidence either way, it does not then become reasonable to simply select whatever belief takes your fancy.**

I think you've been overruled on that theory AJP, It was Einstein who indicated science will be hobbled without imagination. Science exists to prove the unproven, but imagination is critical to scientific progress.

NDE's are not proof in themselves of the continuum of consciousness after death, but what they prove by experience, is consciousness exists without ego, these are the tales of the subjects who returned to life after a proved physical death.

VK3AW...well lets put AJP to the test, does he suffer from the same negative neurosis as yourself?

AJP. you keep returning to your brain damaged subject. Without trawling back through posts above, I believe I dismissed your theory as proof of anything more than an alteration to the degree of conscious awareness.
We are discussing here the infinity nature of consciousness; are we or are we not?

No, I haven’t been overruled at all, diver dan.

<<I think you've been overruled on that theory AJP, It was Einstein who indicated science will be hobbled without imagination.>>

There is a difference between engaging in creative thought to envisage what might be possible, and asserting one way or the other when there is no evidence for either position. The former is the start of the investigative process; the latter is the end.

<<... imagination is critical to scientific progress.>>

Sure, but it doesn’t then follow that, in the absence of any evidence, we get to assert one way or the other.

<<… what [near-death experiences] prove by experience, is consciousness exists without ego …>>

Firstly, there is no evidence for Freud’s ideas on the Ego (given the context, I can only assume that’s the ego you’re referring to). Secondly, the ego would still be a part of our consciousness anyway.

<<… these are the tales of the subjects who returned to life after a proved physical death.>>

Yes, and, again, there are perfectly rational, neurological explanations for what these people report seeing. The brain malfunctions when it is dying, the light at the end of the tunnel is a common manifestation of this. It is even known which parts of the brain control which experience.

<<AJP. you keep returning to your brain damaged subject.>>

Yes, because it suggests that consciousness does not persist after the physical body dies.

<<... I believe I dismissed your theory as proof of anything more than an alteration to the degree of conscious awareness.>>

Yes, with your hypnosis example. However, hypnosis works on the physical brain, so it only compounds the problem for you and the idea of an eternal consciousness.

I'd also note that you are having it both ways. On the one hand, you claim that consciousness "dwells outside of our universe"; on the other, we can alter it with hypnotherapy.

<<We are discussing here the infinity nature of consciousness; are we or are we not?>>

We are, and brain injury, split-brain personality, and hypnosis are major problems for such a proposition.

AJPhillips

**<<We are discussing here the infinity nature of consciousness; are we or are we not?>>

We are, and brain injury, split-brain personality, and hypnosis are major problems for such a proposition.**

I put a stop on this point until you explain your view on ego. Especially your disbelief on Freud's version of ego. (Apparently). Ego is needed for conscious awareness.

Obviously you (and one other) have difficulty coping with imagination. My imaginary flight of fancy through the universe, powered only by consciousness, was example of that.
I have no evidence for the tale it is, but who knows the possibilities of consciousness as a force.

Sure, diver dan.

<<I put a stop on this point until you explain your view on ego.>>

What would you like to know?

<<Especially your disbelief on Freud's version of ego.>>

Most of Freud’s ideas were debunked or have no evidence for them. I'm sorry you had to learn about this now.

I'm surprised that you, as a Christian, were not aware of this. Christians often love shoving this in atheists’ faces (as if it meant something), because the ideas of his Christian contemporary, Jung, were shown to be more correct (I think the intimation is meant to be that Christianity is therefore right).

<<Ego is needed for conscious awareness.>>

Perhaps you should be explaining what your views on the ego are, too? Because I have no idea how the Freudian concept of the ego, or the alleged temporary absence of it during near-death experiences, suggests that the consciousness has mystical properties.

So long as you don't invoke the supernatural without supporting evidence, I'm probably happy to go along with whatever you think the ego is, at least for the sake of argument.

<<Obviously you ... have difficulty coping with imagination.>>

You have no basis for this claim. I distinguished between the imagination and blind assertions. You, on the other hand, are erroneously conflating the two. I have no problem with imagination. I do, however, have a problem with baseless assertions.

<<My imaginary flight of fancy through the universe, powered only by consciousness, was example of that.>>

No, all that was an example of was your determination to believe in the afterlife, while tap dancing around evidence against it.

<<I have no evidence for the tale it is, but who knows the possibilities of consciousness as a force>>

Yes, who knows? There are an infinite number of possibilities with respect to just about anything, if we really want to stretch our imaginations. Which is exactly why we need to wait for evidence before we accept a proposition. If we don't, then we can end up believing all sorts of contradictory claims.

AJPhillips...

So, in your abandonment of Christianity, you have forsaken the Freudian super ego?

I think Freud is correct from a practical point of view, describing the three phases of the psyche; but then, I would ...I'm a practical man.

The only Christian message I'm selling is its relationship to eternal consciousness, for the sake of the argument. Science is calling it cosmic consciousness. So therefore ask, is God a noun or is God a verb? And then think of cosmic consciousness.

**No, all that was an example of was your determination to believe in the afterlife, while tap dancing around evidence against it.**

I'm surprised at you AJP, that Jules Verne didn't immediately pop up in your mind at my adventurous galactic travel quest.

I could be critical of your imagination, but it would serve no purpose than to get you off-side, which is pointless.

**What would you like to know?** Re Ego!

1. Your relationship between ego and conscious awareness.
2. Enlarge on your view of ego..(this is a bit off topic).

Are you suggesting that I have abandoned my moral standards, diver dan?

<<So, in your abandonment of Christianity, you have forsaken the Freudian super ego?>>

Why would you suggest such a thing? And what have my morals got to do with life after death?

<<Science is calling [the eternal consciousness] cosmic consciousness.>>

As far as I’m aware, science is studying no such thing (let alone calling it anything) and hasn’t done so for over 100 years. The only people talking about such woo are quacks like Deepak Chopra.

<<So therefore ask, is God a noun or is God a verb? And then think of cosmic consciousness.>>

God is the ego entangled in spiritual belonging, and capable of being experienced only through the evolution of modality on an exponentially quantum level.

But I don’t see what this has to do with anything we’ve discussed. There is a saying:

If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance…

<<I'm surprised at you AJP, that Jules Verne didn't immediately pop up in your mind at my adventurous galactic travel quest.>>

No, he didn’t. Never was a fan, sorry. Does this change anything?

<<I could be critical of your imagination, but it would serve no purpose ...>>

Again you confuse imagination with clinging to untenable positions. Mere imagination doesn't need to be defended with evasiveness and straw men. No one has criticised your imagination.

<<1. Your relationship between ego and conscious awareness.>>

You want to know my “relationship between ego and conscious awareness”? What is that even supposed to mean? You getting all Chopra on me?

<<2. Enlarge on your view of ego..(this is a bit off topic).>>

You want me to “enlarge” my view of ego? Sorry, you’ve completely lost me now.

I think I misread a question of yours, diver dan.

<<2. Enlarge on your view of ego..(this is a bit off topic).>>

I missed the “on” (it was late). While “enlarge on” still doesn’t make any sense, I suppose your request could at least then be interpreted to as “expand on your view of ego.”

If I’m right, then, yes, I agree, that’s probably off topic. Earlier, however, you wanted to bring the entire discussion to a screeching halt until I “explained my view on ego.” You were loosely tying ego to near-death experiences for God-knows-what reason:

“NDE's are not proof in themselves of the continuum of consciousness after death, but what they prove by experience, is consciousness exists without ego, these are the tales of the subjects who returned to life after a proved physical death.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19170#340826)

So, if near-death experiences are not proof of life after death, then I guess we can ditch this whole ‘ego’ diversion. Unless it is evidence of life after death, who cares if consciousness can exist without ego?

But since you asked, my view on the ego is that, like most things, it is healthy in moderation.

In the Freudian, psychoanalytical sense (i.e. the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity), I can only agree with psychologists in that this is an outdated way of looking at things and that, to any extent that it may be true, it is a gross oversimplification.

Freudian notions of the ego are the foundation on which those who like to play amateur psychologist base their naive assumptions. To the trained psychologist, however, it no longer has any use.

AJPhillips.

I have three streams of thought going on here, obviously you are confused, ( not an accusation).

1.
Firstly, do you believe the ego is directly tied to conscious awareness. If not then what do you attribute to our attachment and recognition of conscious awareness, if not the ego self.

2.
Right; two: the NDE,
the NDE can be induced by stimulating the part of the brain identified as the area the NDE sensation originates, (from a general interest in this rather public issue over time, I have come to believe this to be true).
But the success of the outcome has been refuted by the NDE'rs willing to be subjected to experiments, describing those outcomes as like a painting of the real thing.

It is not the view of a light which features, but the all encompassing nature of the light. So forget a view from one end of the birth canal, gazing into the obstetricians torch light.

And the other stupid is this, if as some believe, the experience is the end result of all of life's memories rolling back to the birth canal, there are two arguments against that conclusion; one is physics itself, and the relationship of time. Time always moves forward in space. Why at death would physics change the rules by having a concluding life rewind. For what reason?

And two, the ego conscious awareness. The overwhelming experience of the NDE'r is a losing of self, which is the total abandonment of ego self in the experience.

3.
Which leads to point three, and why I'm attempting to avoid bogging down in descriptions of the egos manufacturing of conscious awareness.
I'm attempting to seperate into two, the ego awareness built up on earth, from the greater cosmic awareness described by NDE'rs

See below..

AJPhillips

From above..

And then of course, entering the debate, is multi religions belief systems, attesting to a rough likeness of the same eternity.

I've already mentioned three religions which worship the same God (noun). Islam, Christian and Jew. But there are many more with similar views.(aboriginals hold to the dreaming). How could this belief in eternity be coincidental?
This coincidence should not be dismissed from the debate, even by the Godless.

What is the historical significance of the coincidence?

PS.
Re: your reaction to my quizzing you on belief of Freud's view of personality.

His super ego is the master of Morals over Ego. ( my view of this).

I suppose, diver dan.

<<Firstly, do you believe the ego is directly tied to conscious awareness.>>

After all, a sense of self-esteem and self-importance is not possible without conscious awareness. I wouldn’t say it was the cause of it, though, if that’s what you’re getting at.

<<I'm attempting to seperate into two, the ego awareness built up on earth, from the greater cosmic awareness described by NDE'rs>>

Well, I don’t think separating the two is hard. The former is consistent with normal brain function, while the latter is what people often describe when the brains start to malfunction. Like when they’re dying, for example.

Say, have you ever had LSD before? Let me tell you now, you will never feel more at one with the universe than you will on that stuff. Provided you don’t have a bad trip, that is.

<<And then of course, entering the debate, is multi religions belief systems, attesting to a rough likeness of the same eternity.>>

Perhaps that’s just because we all fear death? That would be the simplest explanation. You know, Occam’s Razor ‘n’ all.

<<I've already mentioned three religions which worship the same God (noun). Islam, Christian and Jew.>>

That’s hardly surprising, given they all come from the same part of the world. Now, had they all come from different parts of the planet such that the passing on of myths over generations couldn’t possibly be an explanation for the spread of information, THAT would be something!

Is it any wonder God never thought to do that?

<<How could this belief in eternity be coincidental?>>

What makes you think it's coincidence? What about a universal fear of death, or similar experiences for similar brains? We are all human, after all.

<<This coincidence should not be dismissed from the debate, even by the Godless.>>

It’s quite easy to dismiss. I’ve just shown you how.

<<What is the historical significance of the coincidence?>>

None, probably. Coincidences are inevitable occurrences that will happen from time to time. Could you imagine a world in which coincidences didn’t happen?

Diver Dan "I've already mentioned three religions which worship the same God (noun). Islam, Christian and Jew. But there are many more with similar views.(aboriginals hold to the dreaming). How could this belief in eternity be coincidental?"

Hardly coincidental seeing that Christianity and Islam both have their source in the Jewish religion.

David

AJPhillips.

<Firstly, do you believe the ego is directly tied to conscious awareness.>>

That is a straight forward question ....I'm not getting at anything...I'm asking a question with the expectation that I will not be treated as the enemy in the answer.

** Say, have you ever had LSD before?**

Now this is an interesting question on your part. As you don't admit to any drug use, neither will I, however, I'm familiar with Timothy Leary from the sixties, so I'm familiar with the huge range of outcomes from the use of LSD.
LSD would have to be one of the most tested and researched recreational drugs in history, for many reasons: Mostly medical.

Since it very nearly replicates one aspect of the NDE, maybe we should include its comparison in this discussion, on the death of consciousness.

The major similarity is the evaporation of the ego self.

I say from the outset, it is a drug applied to the normal function of the brain, so it is an artificial applicant. Whereas death of the brain is a perfectly natural application of the physical death of the body . In the NDE the melting of the ego self is recognised as one aspect of the experience.

I've experienced the same melting of the ego in trauma. But it is still not death, pleasant and death is an oxymoron, but fits for this occasion.

More.

AJPhillips
From above (so to speak :-)).

** fear of death...**

It is not true we all fear death. It is true though, we all recognise our own mortality. It is also true we are hard wired to the reptilian brain for flight or fight. An instinct motley will power usually fails dismally to override. The instinct is to stay alive; such as the instinct to fight off a shark attack for example. There is no fear involved.

Maybe we could say though, what drives people to religion is not a need to praise God, but a fear of "eternal " death. Up a level from physical death of the body.
So could we say then, that religious people are more aware of their mortality, and consider peace in eternal consciousness, worth the earthly sacrifice of surrendering the ego to a higher power. (If that's a fitting description of salvation).

That deals with death, now back to coincidences of religious belief.
I would agree that death and mortality is a major driver of all religions, but I don't believe they all offer salvation from the point of view for example, of the Cargo Cult in the New Hebrides. Too crude!

And maybe not coincidental on the grounds that religions deal with the intangible aspect of the body (the soul), which confuse the ego.

All right, I'm still firmly convinced there is an eternal existence after death. And it's not a fear of death thing, since if death was the end all hope, life would be a simple existence of making hay while the sun shone, take on board rampant capitalism, flog the crap out of my fellow man, take everything he owns, and win on every level, for tomorrow we die, dead, Kaput ...great innings!

Which brings the discussion to another opening. Consequences and eternal consciousness!

There was no suspicion of hostility in my answer, diver dan.

<<....I'm not getting at anything...I'm asking a question with the expectation that I will not be treated as the enemy in the answer.>>

I was just simply attempting to pre-empt any naive assumptions that may have followed from your question.

<<Since [LSD] very nearly replicates one aspect of the NDE, maybe we should include its comparison in this discussion, on the death of consciousness.>>

I agree, but I don’t see how that would help your argument for life after death.

<<The major similarity is the evaporation of the ego self.>>

Okay, but I’m still not understanding what the relevance of all this talk of ego is. I don’t think there is any evidence for life after death, and you acknowledge that you have none. I’m happy to leave it at that.

<<It is not true we all fear death.>>

Granted. It is a pretty wide-spread fear, though. This can be seen in the number of theists-turned-atheist who struggle with the thought of a finite existence. It can also be seen in older people who tend to find God more easily, as they 'cram for the finals'.

I disagree with your assertion that there is no fear in a ‘fight’ response. It is the fear that triggers the adrenal glands, making survival more likely.

I have no idea what the rest of your talk of death as to do with whether there is life after death, sorry. However, you do touch on one of the reasons as to why I think religion is harmful:

<<[Religious people] consider peace in eternal consciousness, worth the earthly sacrifice of surrendering the ego to a higher power.>>

It convinces people that they can (or should, even) waste the one and only life they know they’re going to have being sycophants to an imaginary god.

<<Which brings the discussion to another opening. Consequences and eternal consciousness!>>

You’re not going to bring up Pascal’s Wager, are you?

AJPhillips....

Christ Phillips, the more I talk with you, the more glad I am I'm me...you must live a boring life. (I definitely don't ). There is no wiggle room in it. But have faith in randomness; the random nature of consequences. Trust me, I could write a book on it! But...would you believe it...?

Well I'd better retire to the asylum before doctor VK3AW arrives again.

Nice talking to ya.

On the contrary, diver dan, I would have thought that the lack of an apparent need for fantasy in one's life was indicative of a life that was interesting, and vice versa.

<<There is no [wriggle] room in [in your life].>>

Not for claims for which there is no evidence, no. I care about the truth of my beliefs and want to hold as few false beliefs as possible. Who wouldn't want that?

<<But have faith in randomness; the random nature of consequences.>>

I don't have faith in anything. I have trust that has been earned, and I will grant trust tentatively, but I don't have faith. Faith is the excuse people give when they don't have a good reason to believe something.

I am still lurking but AJP is saying all that is needed at present.

David

AJP
Oh..I'm happy to carry on. I thought you were over it!

Doc:
So it's two against one is it...my sort of odds! :-))

Well AJP, it's quite a joy to flush you out and discover your actually human, and not a robotic answering machine.

From my own perspective, I sit very comfortably with Christianity. If you were a Jew though, you would no doubt have sympathy for me as a misguided member of a strange sect.
And if your were a Muslim, you would probably harbour a secret desire to behead me, and rid the world of another infidel!
But we all three share the same God. Interesting!

From a religious point of view, I hold to the idea of a Heaven and Hell, and an eternal life beyond the grave. But that view is from a distant mountain of "faith"; one which you have climbed down from, since tangible evidence is lacking.

It is only from a position of general interest, I take note of a rising tide of evidence supporting a continuation of consciousness after death, attributable to physics. I'm not in need of proof.
(As opposed to yourself). I don't consider my position as two bob each way, (Pascals Wager).
You would consider me brain washed under the heading of "give me the first seven years of a child's life" (and whatever follows).

Your position is all the dumb F* believe in God, and all the intelligentsia are atheist. That is not a novel position! It's actually mind numbing in my view!
It drives me to quip. "Get yourself a life".

Well, where do you suggest we take the discussion from here?

An interesting mish-mash of fragmented thoughts there, diver dan.

Yes, I’m pretty much over it now, but you keep making claims that I want to address. I’m not one to announce my departure and then bow out. I find people take advantage of that by asserting whatever nonsense they like after you leave, or by dancing a little jig thinking they’ve won something.

<<... I take note of a rising tide of evidence supporting a continuation of consciousness after death, attributable to physics.>>

I thought you acknowledged that you had no evidence for an afterlife. Now there’s a ”rising tide” of it?

Please, by all means, tell me what this evidence is.

<<I'm not in need of proof [for an afterlife].>>

Neither am I, necessarily. At this point, just any sort evidence would be a start.

<<You would consider me brain washed under the heading of "give me the first seven years of a child's life" …>>

Maybe to some degree, if you were indoctrinated as a child and not a born-again for whom God made his customarily late appearance after the damage had already been done.

<<Your position is all the dumb F* believe in God, and all the intelligentsia are atheist.>>

Not necessarily. While it’s true that atheists are generally more educated, that doesn’t mean there aren’t any smart theists or dumb atheists.

<<It drives me to quip. "Get yourself a life".>>

Well, I’m not sure how stereotyping theists and atheists would be indicative of not having a life, but, okay.

The diagram at http://i.imgur.com/LBo0WK3.png is useful. DD thinks atheism should go inside the circle and theism outside it.

The creation of God and punishment for sin in an afterlife is a construct to both explain the world and to keep society in order, presuming innate evil in man.

There are scientific explanations for the existence of the world, and shared morals, that do not invoke such constructs or presumptions.

AJPhillips

"Get yourself a life"

My meaning of that statement is not insulting, it is what a person appears to be from my perspective, who like yourself, rags every possibility of advanced theory by condemning it as simply untrue until irrefutable evidence appears. To my mind that identifies a lazy regressive thinker.

The theory of eternal consciousness: forgetting Christian texts, which you obviously consider yourself superior to, in your refusal to apply any part of their teaching to your self, inclusive of dismissing their moral guide lines as debunked by the high priests of Liberalism; the new God for the age apparently,

I think I have presented more evidence toward promoting the possibility of conscious life after death than you have presented against it. So far your evidence against the possibility, rests in refuting any claim for it.
What is your evidence it doesn't exist when there are quite clear pointers towards the possibility?

And further, I don't think the experience of life after death is always a good one either.
In fact, one poster to these pages described his experience as looking into the bowels of hell. He was traumatised.

Those pointers are from the very people who have been clinically dead, then resuscitated some time after: In modern parlance, they've been there and done that.

This is not the experience achieved by LSD tripping. Nor can they be entirely replicated in research, by stimulating the areas of the brain which appear to be responsible.

I'll leave you dancing with the fairies then AJP. I think the weight of evidence comes down on the side of distinct possibility

Dear Luciferase,

«There are scientific explanations for the existence of the world»

What about the existence of existence?

«There are scientific explanations for the existence of the world»

Even if the world can be explained through science, explanations on their own are useless - science can tell you all about your prison but it cannot teach you how to become free of it.

At no point have I ever demanded irrefutable evidence, diver dan.

<<… what a person appears to be from my perspective, who like yourself, rags every possibility of advanced theory by condemning it as simply untrue until irrefutable evidence appears.>>

This is the fallacious appeal to absolute certainty that I mention occasionally. Every time the issue of evidence is raised, we have someone bozo pipe up and throw in a red herring regarding absolutely certainty (or, in your case, “irrefutable evidence”). It is a form of the Argument from Ignorance fallacy.

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

<<To my mind that identifies a lazy regressive thinker.>>

No, it’s a healthy scepticism, and I would challenge you to point to a single problem with it. There is nothing “lazy” about filtering the information one receives to eliminate fallacious thinking and account for biases such as confirmation bias. It is a constant effort attempting to override evolved and instinctual factors that distort our perception of reality. Laziness is believing whatever makes you feel comfortable.

<<The theory of eternal consciousness: …>>

I would say “hypothesis”. A theory is well established.

<<… forgetting Christian texts, which you obviously consider yourself superior to …>>

You’re damn right I consider myself superior to Christian texts. They endorse slavery, incite homophobia, promote divisiveness, and tell the story of a god who has to continuously fix his own failures.

<<I think I have presented more evidence toward promoting the possibility of conscious life after death than you have presented against it.>>

Wow. First, you acknowledge that you have no evidence for life after death. Then you claim there is a “rising tide” of evidence (without mentioning what any of it is). Now you claim that you have actually presented this alleged evidence.

No, diver dan, you haven’t. There is no evidence.

<<So far your evidence against the possibility, rests in refuting any claim for it.>>

Well, yes, that, by definition, would be evidence against it. You make it sound like there’s some sort of failing there.

Continued…

…Continued

<<What is your evidence it doesn't exist when there are quite clear pointers towards the possibility?>>

We already discussed it. It involved brain injury and split-brain personality.

Now, how about listing these so-called pointers towards the possibility of life after death?

<<And further, I don't think the experience of life after death is always a good one either.>>

I agree with you there. When you think about it, eternal life would actually be torture.

<<In fact, one poster to these pages described his experience as looking into the bowels of hell. He was traumatised.>>

Who was that, and how did you rule out neurological factors?

<<Those pointers are from the very people who have been clinically dead, then resuscitated some time after: In modern parlance, they've been there and done that.>>

Again, how did you rule out the rational, neurological factors?

<<Nor can [near-death experiences] be entirely replicated in research, by stimulating the areas of the brain which appear to be responsible.>>

Actually, they can:

http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/scientists-simulate-near-death-experience-in-the-brain

<<I think the weight of evidence comes down on the side of distinct possibility>>

Then, again, please tell me what this evidence is. Because your belief, no matter how strong, is not evidence of anything.