Summerlander wrote:There is no afterlife. Period. All aspects of the mind can be destroyed with the expunction of brain parts. There is insuperable evidence for this. You either die and that is the end...
But this is not exact:
Are you equal with your brain parts? Are you destroyed when a part of your brain is destroyed?
Here the analogy is like:
- even if you lose your finger, YOU will exist, but you can't use that finger
- now lose all body parts/the ears/eyes/and connected brain networks etc, so you couldn't move/hear/see... but YOU would be there (maybe : )
- now cut out one-by-one, so finally we get only one neuron, and that remaining awareness which could send a signal through that: two knock means 'I'm still here'.
- after this we burn that last one neuron, what happens?
Todays scientist says: 'Nah, you are fired, I'm done, nothing remained here, as everyone can see...'
- But is this the only option? Don't you feel some uncertainty here?
What if that awareness won't simple turn (burn : ) out from reality, but flies away after loosing that last anchor, and looks for a new one in a... where/how could that appear again? Where are all the new selfs come from?
And again the question: what is that, your, my awareness exactly? Measurable, (will be ever)?
Do you know how it works? Why exist? And why YOU have that unique viewpoint you have?
How did you get that? etc..
I hope you don't think that you are only a by-product of a chemical process..., or if that is so, than you - as everyone else - are only a non-player character in MY reality-game
Do you really think that, our partial knowledge about our existence is already enough to decide that afterlife question?
Many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory..., 2013http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.5545v1.pdf
"On the other hand nobody really knows what is the consciousness."
"the multiplicity of the alternatives, which is present already in quantum theory even for a relatively simple systems is something quite real.
It is already here, and to recognize that it is so, it is enough to take the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory seriosly."
- Science knocks harder the door of parallel words? I hope someone will breach that door, and not only a blank wall hides behind that, but many-doors.
How is it connecting to our life? Many-me, many-you? etc...
Here is my really simple theoreticall modell:
- we can agree in this: we all simple jumped into existence, one time, somewhere, and will go out later
- now partly based on your post: when we die we lose our body, brain etc, only remains our awareness (if it is something, that can remain)
- then somehow we start to perceive a new life again (the same way we started this one, this problem is solved by nature, as we can see/experience),
and form a new body, brain, etc, and here is why we can't remember the other lives, because we lost that body, memories, etc
and this goes endless until existence exist... or not, who knows?
some other article:
Many Worlds Model..., 2011:http://lanl.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/ ... 8.1674.pdfhttp://www.science20.com/profile/sascha_vongehr
A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics, 2013http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069v1.pdf
A mailing list for discussion of the idea that all possible universes exist:http://everything-list.105.n7.nabble.com/
Paul J .Werbos - Ultimate Priorities for Space Science - National Science Foundation, 2012http://vixra.org/pdf/1209.0054v1.pdfhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worl ... rpretationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_realism
book: Bruce Hood - The Self Illusion: How the Social Brain Creates Identity, 2012
"Why did we evolve the self illusion? Like every other illusion our brain generates, it serves a useful purpose. If you think about the “I” and the “me” that we usually refer to as the self, it provides a focal point to hang experiences together both in the immediate here and now, as well as to join those events over a lifetime. Experiences are fragmented episodes unless they are woven together in a meaningful narrative. This is why the self pulls it all together. Without a focus, the massive parallel processing in our brain means that we would be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of computations if we ever had to deal with them individually. Rather, we get a summarized headline that relates all the outputs from these unconscious processes. Sometimes we can delve into the details of the story a little more closely if we scrutinize the content, but very often much of it is hidden from us.
The self illusion depends on stored information that has been acquired during a lifetime. These are our memories that are constructed as we interpret the world. That interpretation is guided by mechanisms that seek out certain information in the world but also by those around us who help us to make sense of it all. In this way, we are continually shaped by those around us. As the species with the longest proportion of life spent as juveniles dependent on others, human children are particularly evolved for social interaction, and much of what our brains compute appears to be dedicated to socially relevant information. In the absence of social interaction early in development, children can be permanently socially disabled even though their intellect may be intact. Certainly, the formative years leave a legacy of how we interact with others for the rest of our lives. It is through this social interaction with others that we construct our sense of identity and ultimately our sense of self.
We have not evolved to think about others as a bundle of processes. Rather, we have evolved to treat others as individual selves. It is faster, more economical, and more efficient to treat others as a self rather than as an extended collection of past histories, hidden agendas, unresolved conflicts, and ulterior motives. Treating humans as selves optimizes our interactions. We fall in love and hate individuals, not collections. We cannot abandon our morality simply because we decompose the individual self into its myriad of influences. Punishment and praise is heaped on the individual, not on the multitude of others who shaped the self. Those who reject the notion of a self in control of destiny, lead sadder, less satisfying lives. Those who embrace the self illusion feel fulfilled and purposeful.
Why is it so difficult to see through the illusion?"
"You only exist as a pattern made up of all the others things in your life that shape you. If you take each away, “you” would eventually cease to exist. This does not mean that you do not exist at all, but rather that you exist as a combination of all the others who complete your sense of self. These are the memories and experiences that shape you. The problem, as we have seen, however, is that these memories are not always that reliable and so the self that is constructed is not necessarily an accurate or consistent version. It is continually shifting and reshaping as the contexts change. We are so willing to accommodate others that we adapt to each role in a continuous, dynamic, shape-shifting ballet.
FIGURE 9-1 The self illusion is an emergent property from the cluster of external influences.
"This visual metaphor also makes a fundamental point about the nature of reality and illusion. The shape of “you” may be an illusion but our brains use illusions to recreate the world. Everything is processed and abstracted, with the brain putting in a large amount of effort to organize, interpret, and fill in missing information based on past experience. For example, we know that there are circuits of the brain that are firing as if the illusory circle in the diagram was really there. That’s why you see the invisible circle. What this means is that the brain considers the arrangement and decides that the only sensible explanation for the way each sphere seems to be missing a piece is because of the “you” circle in the middle. In other words, the brain hallucinates the experience of “you” by stimulating its own neural circuits to create that impression. It may be an illusion, but it is real as far as the brain is concerned. It’s not magic—it’s just basic neurophysiology describing how the pattern-seeking structures of the brain prefer order and create explanations.
So, why can’t you see that you are a reflected self? For one thing, that view is inconsistent with the narrative that our brain generates. Many of our thoughts and actions that we think reflect our self are not what they seem. We believe we have freedom to choose, but, in many instances, the choices occur in the absence of any deliberation and often under the influence of others. We are so dependent on maintaining our social inclusion that we readily conform to the will of the group. Because we are our brains, which create our sense of self, we have no privileged access to this invisible process from an outsider’s perspective.
One final mirror demonstration may leave you convinced that we are blind to how our brain creates our experience. Take a good hard look at your self in a mirror. Focus your gaze on your left eye and have a good look at it. Now switch and focus your gaze on your right eye. Notice anything odd? If you alternate your focus of gaze from the left eye to the right eye and back again, you cannot see your own eye movements from the left to the right and back again. Your eyes are moving—you just cannot see them move. Ask someone else to do the same thing. Now you can easily see their eyes moving but, like you, they cannot see their own movements in the reflection in the mirror. This is because our brains deliberately wipe out the visual experience of seeing the world every time we move our eyes. You may be surprised to discover that you are effectively blind for about an average of 2 hours on every waking day, but you would never know this.
This simple biological quirk is just one of the many different ways that our brain hides its true operations from our consciousness. We think we see a stable visual world but, in fact, it is constructed every time we move our eyes. In fact, unless you are paying close attention, we could switch objects in the world and you would never notice the change. This is because we assume that the world is stable, but that is an illusion. The self is the same. We cannot be aware of the underlying processes that create it and yet we feel it is coherent. You never see that you are a reflection of the others around you because you cannot easily see how you change. And we don’t easily see our self switching from one to another until it is pointed out to us by those around us or we recognize that the context has changed.
At the danger of overextending the metaphor, if we were able to see the world during our eye movements, we would become nauseous because it would become unstable and we would experience motion sickness. The world would smear as the visual input stimulated the neurons that process the light. Here, too much information can be a bad thing. So, our brain protects us from the true nature of the situation. Maybe this is why we do not see the cognitive illusions that create the self. Cognitive dissonance protects us from ruminating over failed goals, positive biases keep us motivated, free will gives us grounds for praise and blame, decision-making gives us the illusion of control. Without these cognitive illusions, we would not be able to function because we would be overwhelmed by the true complexity of the hidden processes and mechanisms that control us. And that, in the end, is a good thing.
What of the future of this self illusion? It’s unlikely to disappear. It is an evolved adaptation after all—but it may have to change. Currently, the world’s population is just under 7 billion. Within the next generation, the United Nations estimates that the majority of us will be living in a megacity—metropolitan areas with a density of at least 2,000 people per square kilometer and at least 10 million inhabitants. The expansion of the Internet means that the majority of the world’s population will have the potential to communicate with each other. Instantaneous language translation is just round the corner and will further erode another barrier to communication. These developments are a far cry from the Serengeti savannahs where our ancestors first appeared. One can speculate how changes will impact upon the individual’s identity, but it would seem that in an ever more crowded future, we are going to need a pretty strong sense of self to survive."
* * *
In parallel with the scientific view I read, I like Jane Roberts/Seth writings:
I think she could access her subconscious like the phasers, or maybe there was a glitch in her mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Roberts
Oversoul Seven Trilogy
I have a lot of her books, if interested pm me.
from 83. session, 1964:
"When man realizes that he creates his own image now, he will not find it so startling to believe that he creates other images in other times. Only after such a basis [is established] will the idea of reincamation achieve its natural validity and only when it is understood that the subconscious, certain layers of it, is a link between the present personality and past ones, will the theory of reincarnation be accepted as fact."
from The Eternal Validity of the Soul, ch. 16, 1971:
"In your daily life at any given moment of your time, you have a multitudinous choice of actions, some trivial and some of utmost importance. You may, for example, sneeze or not sneeze, cough or not cough, walk to the window or the door, scratch your elbow, save a child from drowning, learn a lesson, commit suicide, harm another, or turn your cheek.
It seems to you that reality is composed of those actions that you choose to take. Those that you choose to deny are ignored. The road not taken then seems to be a non-act, yet every thought is actualized and every possibility explored. Physical reality is constructed from what seems to be a series of physical acts. Since this is the usual
criterion of reality for you, then non-physical acts usually escape your notice, discretion, and judgment.
Let us take an example. You are reading this book when the telephone rings. A friend wants you to meet him at five o'clock. You stand considering. In your mind you see yourself
(A) saying no and staring home,
(B) saying no and going somewhere else instead, or
(C) saying yes and keeping the engagement
Now all of these possible actions have a reality at that point. They are all capable of being actualized in physical terms. Before you make your decision, each of these probable actions are equally valid. You choose one of these, and by your decision you make one event out of the three physical. This event is duly accepted as a portion of those
serial happenings that compose your normal existence. The other probable actions, however, are as valid as they ever were, though you have not chosen to actualize them physically. They are carried out as effectively as the one you chose to accept. If there was a strong emotional charge behind one of the rejected probable actions, it may even have greater validity as an act than the one you chose.
All actions are initially mental acts. This is the nature of reality.
That sentence cannot be emphasized too thoroughly. All mental acts therefore are valid. They exist and cannot be negated. Because you do not accept them all as physical events, you do not perceive their strength or durability. Your lack of perception cannot destroy their validity, however. If you wanted to be a doctor and are now in a different profession, then in some other probable reality you are a doctor. If you have abilities that you are not using here, they are being used elsewhere. Now, again, these ideas may seem impossibly rich for your mental blood because of your propensity toward serial thought and three-dimensional attitudes."
from book page number 322-end to 326:http://www.scribd.com/doc/54938408/Seth ... t-vol2-OCR