- Tambra Tice
- Poway, CA
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
What do you think happens to your soul when your body dies?
What do you think happens to your soul when your body dies? I'm looking to find out what people think about the soul...does it live on? cease to exist? reincarnation? heaven or hell? What makes you believe that?
Topics:
Does god exist NDE death dying faith heaven hell reincarnation the soul
Helen Hupe 30+
I think every experience tells us something, but as yet I could not say what that something is. Maya is an interesting idea and I have to think about this much more. How can I incorporate this into my belief system. I do have one more question...When you speak of the universe's gift could you tell me how you define universe. I know that sounds a little stupid but please ? Thank you for sharing this with me. I sincerely appreciate it.
Frans Kellner 100+
Jacob Miller 10+
Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me... Anything can happen, child. Anything can be."
Comment deleted
Colleen Steen 500+
I KNOW:>)
The question is: "What do you think happens to your soul when your body dies". Anyone trying to debunk the fact that there is a soul/spirit/life force energy is technically off topic anyway:>)
Thomas Jones 100+
All of them?
So you think you can make a categorical statement in favour of knowing what happens to the soul after we die and someone else can't make such a statement about "knowing?"
Interesting.
Do you think you might be doing a little projecting of your own?
The question is: "What do you think happens to your soul when your body dies".
I agree but how many of you have expressed your belief as an opinion - you "know," Kathy "knows," Peter "knows," another fellow (a Muslim whose name I forget) "knows," the atheists and the materialists "know."
That fact that you all "know" and yet what you know is incompatible with one another should give you a bit of clue.
I know, I know - it would all be so simple if we just knew what Kathy knows ... then we would, well, know ... and we could put aside all of our other foolish unknowing masquerading as knowing.
What?
Not Kathy?
How about Colleen?
No?
Peter?
Me?
If you believe you know, fine.
Do you know?
Not a chance.
And you don't have to agree with me.
Colleen Steen 500+
I'm not sure who you are addressing, but since I recieved the notification of your comment, I will respond.
I know what MY experiences are, and I am confident that I know what is going to happen when MY body dies and the energy that powers the body moves on.
I have made no "categorical statement" about anyone else Thomas. I have shared information simply as my experiences. It feels like you are arguing simply for the sake of arguing, and I don't care to go in those argumentative circles with you.
Thomas Jones 100+
Thank you Colleen.
(And you have confirmed my assertion that you have integrity when it comes to responding to the "best of your ability*," with honesty and clarity.)
"I know ... MY experiences ... I am confident that I know ...'
I believe you.
------------
* To paraphrase you.
kaka dada
Hmmmm. my neighbor had the similar experience but he was on drugs.
Colleen Steen 500+
You're right...many emotions, psychological and physical states can be reached "on drugs". While working with hundreds of men in the prison system, most of whom were drug addicted, I discovered that one can certainly reach altered states with drugs, but usually cannot sustain that feeling when NOT on drugs.
To me, that is the difference with drug induced euphoria, and the states we are talking about.
Comment deleted
kaka dada
If you call this process a soul i'm ok with that.
Thomas Jones 100+
You do like to argue, don't you?
By the way, have you ever heard me say I don't know what happens to our soul after we die.
No, I didn't think so.
For all you know I could be here simply to help you get over your "self" ... not that you would be open to that possibility ... you already "know" ... and your "knowing" is so much more genuine than mine ... or the Christian's who says he or she knows you're going to hell. Or the atheist who says you are going to be worm food. Or ...
Of course, your knowing is the supreme knowing (no doubt - for you - it is.)
Anyway Kathy, I have no objection if you think you know what happens after we die.
As the saying goes ... whatever gets you through the night.
And even if you think you do, you don't. (Live with it.)
Thomas Jones 100+
Have you ever heard me say I have not had all of those experiences ... and more?
No, I didn't think so.
Comment deleted
Frans Kellner 100+
Maybe you can ask Thomas.
Colleen Steen 500+
I would love to hear Thomas' stories. He has had 3 NDEs and.................???
Helen Hupe 30+
Thomas Jones 100+
As you may have guessed, I do not usually talk about my personal experience. Even mentioning that I have had three NDEs was done only to address a particular point.
There is a reason I do, or, more accurately, don't do it.
(Language has its limitations to which this sentence will attest.) Not the least is that they are mine and, to use a particular worldview, they are the universe's gift to me. If the universe would like others to have them also, I am sure it can be arranged.
But because it is you who is asking, let me share a little.
My request is that you do not use these descriptions as confirmation or refutation of any particular cosmology. They are simply what they are ... stories of someone's experience.
I have read the scientific literature, the holy, and the profane, and I have found not one human experience described therein that does not relate directly to an experience I have had myself. Not one. (Excluding science fiction, of course.)
I could not write the stuff I write if it was "from a book."
I have listened to teachers, students, and masters ... and, again, there is not one thing they have shared that does not match a personal experience I have had.
At a point in my life - when I was very young - I strove for what Kathy might refer to as higher "levels" of consciousness. I compared myself to others and it caused me to experience pride and envy. Life's kindness dissolved all barriers. Understanding collapsed. Definitions collapsed, Explanations collapsed. Everything collapsed but life itself.
Life contains all. I contain life.
This is the mystery.
In eastern philosophy there is the concept of "maya" ... illusion. It is said that if you can see it, hear it, taste it, touch it, feel it, or think it, it is maya.
Our pictures, our explanations, our stories, our expectations and our memories are all "maya."
We like to talk about what happens to the soul AFTER we die.
There is no after.
Literally, there is no after. "After" is maya.
Colleen Steen 500+
Well that makes it all very clear...sounds like you have done it ALL!
Kudos to you:>)
p.s. I like to talk about "here" and "now" a LOT, as you may have noticed in my comments:>)
dingle mcringleberry
And you strongly resemble Bill gates from a far in your profile picture.
Comment deleted
Frans Kellner 100+
As for a reply I think you could have written it in gold. It is so true and well stated.
I think of Arjuna with your example. Stories that reveal the interaction between mind and soul which you can't put in an equation. There has to be a balance between math and myth.
Comment deleted
Frans Kellner 100+
I loved your transcript of that Aramaen line. Maybe you copy it one more time.
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Jang hun
Allan Macdougall 30+
Sitting here on my agnostic fence I can see both the conventional scientific view of the material, but I can also see the possibilities of the non-material, related as it is, to our own consciousness (although I do not profess to understand much of it). The relationship between consciousness and the quantum is a scientific concept too, but touches upon seemingly paradoxical dimensions that go way beyond that which is immediately understandable to us. We have little idea about what goes on in those dimensions - so as far as the question of 'the soul' is concerned, should we keep an open mind?
This does not necessarily need to head into religious territory - it can remain scientific if you want it to be - but I would mention the possibility that the polar opposites of religion and science might just form a coalition and mutual understanding within the area of quantum reality (?)
Hans Yoo
dingle mcringleberry
Because every theist gives me a different answer.
I've heard everything from "energy" to "ectoplasm" to "nothing, because science can't prove everything".
Jay patel
Walter Radtke
In any event, if memory is somehow woven into the fabric of space, then a technology might be invented where by it can be downloaded into a new body. That's my take on reincarnation. This theory of mine has the exact same quantity of rigor and merit as any other religious or philosophical speculation on a "soul" but nobody will be asking you for missionary money.
Jacob Miller 10+
Ha, about the Kermit thing. I though the comment Kermits soul is a hand was very funny and communicated with a very lighthearted spirit ! As far as the other one . Eh....
Jacob Miller 10+
Thank you for sharing -those were incredible. I do consider myself sort of a mystic but I cant really get on board with the Gnostic spirit. :)
ps. My favorite part in the lords prayer and I wonder how else this is translated.
....and lead us not into tepmtation but deliver us from evil for thine is the kingdom the power and the glory for ever and ever amen
Thomas Jones 100+
You're welcome.
I'll see if I can find the time to send the complete translation of the line that interests you. (What I have posted so far is from my files, I just cut and paste it.)
Gnosis, as I'm sure you know means to know ... aspiring to know ... knowledge of spiritual mysteries ...
Thomas Jones 100+
I liked the Kermit story.
Humour is a good thing.
We take ourselves way too seriously ... I mean look at THIS topic: What happens AFTER we die?
And we're taking it seriously.
Does that not strike you as a little bit funny?
Patrice Cop
I don't think souls exist.
So when I die.. it's over.
Please don't think it's a negative approach. By knowing it'll be over when I die, I try to enjoy every moment I live. (and I succeed in it quite well)
best link on this topic is http://academicearth.org/courses/death imo
grtz,
P
Jason Kather 10+
"Why are there so many songs about rainbows and what's on the other side?
Rainbows are visions, but only illusions. Rainbows have nothing to hide.
So we've been told and some choose to believe it. I know they're wrong...wait and see.
Someday we'll find it, the Rainbow Connection...the lovers, the dreamers and me."
It becomes obvious as I read through his statements on Rainbows that he is speaking about life, death, and the soul. I also believe that frogs have a much better grasp on the soul because they are smaller than humans and green (This is obvious to others as well, right?).
Since Kermit and I go way back, I feel I can help translate his brilliant statements into more understandable terms for humans to understand. The people who believe in souls are the "Lovers, dreamers, and frogs", but they don't have any real reasons to believe (Other than the hope of one day finding the connection). The rest of us just like cute songs from our past and "Pigs in Space", but need a little evidence to go off of before committing to ideas based on fantasy. That Kermit was a wise little frog.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSFLZ-MzIhM&feature=related
Comment deleted
Patrice Cop
Or maybe a couple of hands+strings???
Jason Kather 10+
I am glad you asked this question because it is touches on the most essential part of my belief. This belief is that Kermit is real and not a puppet.
I know he is real because I can see him, hear him sing, and others have seen him too. More important than the physical aspects of Kermit is the way he makes me feel. Kermit makes me happy, so he must be real, right? Why would anyone want to take away something that makes me happy?
So... It seems as though I can argue the validity of Kermit at least as well as someone else can argue for a soul to exist.
Jacob Miller 10+
In the arena of education alone there are many very well educated and respected Scientists and Philosphers who do not think the idea of a soul i sso silly ( I can send you a reading list if you like). Or we can just create another forum and dedicate it too Kermit.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Jason Kather 10+
Most of the arguments in this thread for the existence of a soul are equally as silly to me as the Kermit theory. Turnabout is fair play.
I chose to take a different path in conveying my thoughts on this topic. If this offends anyone, I apologize. However, please notice that I did not threaten eternal damnation in Hell or offer to save anyone's soul by helping him or her find Jesus. I would think either of these actions would be much more offensive to the general public.
Jacob Miller 10+
Yes, you implied that.
Im was just curious as to why you bothered to say anything on the subject.
If I came across a forum for Kermit -wich is as silly to me as a soul is to you-then I would pass it on by. But say what you like. Its your world man, no ones stopping you. But if you run across someone who because they believe in a soul is doing somehting good in the world. Its probably better just to let them believe a fairy tale whether its silly to you or not.
Jason Kather 10+
"This does not answer my question, nor does it 'argue the validity' that Kermit is 'real and not a puppet' in fact it doesn't do anything but prove your bias."
I neither believe that Kermit is anything more than a puppet nor do I want anyone else to believe this. I do hold to the point that there is as much evidence that Kermit is real as there is that a soul exists. The same arguments can be used based on zero evidence.
"This conversation is not a debate over the existence of the soul; the existence of the soul is implied within the frame of the question, so for anyone to come here just to comment against the existence of the soul is not only being , but also committing a breech of TED's Terms of Use by not remaining on topic."
I disagree that I am off topic. One of the direct questions posed in the opening post is: "I'm looking to find out what people think about the soul...does it live on? cease to exist? reincarnation? heaven or hell? What makes you believe that?" Based on this question, I am quite clearly stating what I think of a soul. If I am off topic by this, then most of this entire thread is off topic.
What is "unnecessarily argumentative"? Is that having a point? Is that making your point in a different manner than the same old "banging your head against the wall" kind of way? I almost equated this topic to Alien Abductions. I almost made a case for the opinions of those abducted to be just as valid as those who have had a NDE. I almost said that their experiences are no less real to them than your's are to you, but I don't believe in alien abductions either. In fact...there is zero evidence to support it. Would that have been unnecessarily argumentative? I think my Kermit analogy was less threatening because he is Kermit, how can someone not find the humor there?
To your last point...I do not want to disprove a soul. My goal is only to point out what is real information and what is not. Belief is belief. Fact is fact.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Jason Kather 10+
Comment deleted
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Comment deleted
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Frans Kellner 100+
Peter Law 30+
:-)
Peter Law 30+
:-)
Ahmed Hatem
when the body dies the soul come out by the death angel,
if the one is good it its pain is less and if he dies as shahid as in a battle or defending him self his home his money his family the pain is like a needle hit,but he/she is bad the soul come out from the body as you separate spiny plant from a watery wool !!
after that the soul goes to the sky,after the body is buried the soul goes to the body again and he/she hears the voices of the people around the grave leaving and he/she cry to them not to go!!
if he/she is good two white angels come,if he is bad two dark angels come and ask him three questions "who is your god?what is your religion? who is the messenger that come in your era? " he can answer only if he is good he says" my god is Allah my religion is Islam my messenger is Muhammad". if he is bad he says" i don't know".
then a white angel comes if he is good and dark angel comes if he is bad and. the man says who are you. if he 's good the white angel says i am your good work and the bliss will start and his grave will be a part of the heaven but if he is bad the dark angel says i am your bad work and the hell will start and his grave will be a part from the hell !!
the soul exist and don't dies whatever in heaven or hell, all that are facts in Islam
sorry for my english
all my best,
Gerald O'brian 50+
The data about who we were as unique individuals surviving it's flesh and bone envelope, getting reincarnated into fresh new bodies.
So it does live on if you've mated, disapears with you otherwise.
Comment deleted
Colleen Steen 500+
Christophe Cop 500+
That would imply that your soul is your metabolism....
But technically, it is not in contradiction with science. Though I would like to point out that when the energy is used and disperses as heat.... your soul is the heat (following your reasoning)... and stops to produce more heat after death.
It does not support a lot of the claims made in this conversation though
Comment deleted
Thomas Jones 100+
No, that's true, you didn't say that - whether you thought about it or not is beyond my ken - , but it is the logical extension of attributing anything to the application of energy. "Unused" energy dissipates as heat. There is no physical contrivance, biological or otherwise, that is 100% efficient in its use of energy.
QUOTE: "In worst case, my interpretation of soul as type of energy might be wrong, but soul is something."
Yes, it no doubt is "something." It is possible that "the something" is simply an idea.
It might be something other than that.
Again: We either know or we don't know.
Speculation is not disallowed.
Christophe Cop 500+
I think it is unfair (and misleading towards science) to first try and formulate a scientific account of the soul, while later saying you are not using the scientific terminology (in this case energy) properly.
Your claim about "unconventional energy" should not be called energy (unless it has the same fundamental properties all forms of energy have). If that is a claim you are willing to make, it can start to become a scientific theory, that can then be tested (after eliminating all logic errors en inconsistencies first I guess)
Colleen Steen 500+
What might have happened, if scientists, throughout history had said...that idea is too "far fetched" so we're not going to consider it? Probably not much progress in scientific discovery huh?
I think Farrukh's idea is very interesting, and it DOES support many claims made in this discussion:>)The soul/energy may be very much a part of our metabolism, as some of us have suggested that it is the life force energy.Y
ou say Christophe, that technically, Farrukh's theory is not in contradiction to science? I agree:>)Some of us are suggesting that the soul/energy moves on when the body dies. The energy disperses heat...the soul is the heat/metabolism/life force, and stops producing heat IN THE BODY because the energy/soul is no longer in the physical body. That is why the body becomes cold and
ceases to function.
I don't think it is unfair or misleading towards science to build on the knowledge we have at this time, and in fact, that seems like the logical way to learn and grow with information. Scientific discoveries need to start somewhere...correct? Again, I ask you the question...what would happen if young scientists with different ideas are all told that their idea is too "far fetched"?
We know that I am not a scientist, and I'm commenting on this topic because of an experience I had, and I LOVE to hear the scientific possibilities:>) The only way I can describe what I experienced is as energy, and I know that is not adequate as far as what I am trying to describe, but it is the only word that fits, at this time. Call it "unconventional energy" if you will, and perhaps we can speak about soul/energy/life force from that base. It is already being tested scientifically, so for you to dismess it as "far fetched" Christophe, doesn't seem very logical:>)
Frans Kellner 100+
I just received over mail the link to a testimony that you perhaps would like to see.
Maybe Christophe likes to see it too, to criticize it because it doesn't fit his logic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL1oDuvQR08
Christophe Cop 500+
- They pronounced him dead when he was still on the machines... (technically he was still not completely dead?)
- The person heart started to beat again (which he admits happens). The pressure comes back (we don't know why... but it can happen)...
=> this is an exceptional story, but does not give an account of a soul
- The person's description could have been influenced by other people's witnesses... I would need to make an inquiry on the people talked to him &c... Plus the doctors pre-disposition towards certain beliefs (in order to exclude confirmation bias)
Still quite skeptical, but witnesses like that should make us attempt to document such cases, and maybe try and film the whole event, in order to exclude any sources of skepticism people like me still have...
Christophe Cop 500+
Of course out of the box thinking is needed in order to generate new hypothesis... so i would not try to prevent people from coining new ideas.
however... certain observations and established facts have a body of evidence that can not be ignored, and need to be taken into account within the new (forming) theory. It may not blatantly reject it (a new theory in physics cannot contradict gravity for example)
I did say he made a good point... sadly, he lost his credibility after my comment... If he acknowledged the (thus far never ever rejected) ideas of thermodynamics, it would have been great and he might have gone to a new plausible theory that might augment the probability of a soul to exist.
However, he retreated from the established body of observations, and got to a "mere" opinion.
if however, he acknowledges thermodynamics, we could go further, and investigate his ideas (following the older logic of Popper, or the newer Bayesian reasoning), in order to see whether this (albeit far-fetched) idea is likely (or not).
To me it's like Michael Shermer says: "Be open minded, but not so open minded your brain falls out"... It means that you cannot throw previous observations or ideas out of the window, just because you like to think otherwise (or because you don't know about them)
Thomas Jones 100+
I am responding here to a question you asked in another conversation.
I don't think our intention should be to convince other people of anything ... that is, it is not important whether anyone agrees with us or not (about anything.)
I think we should just express ourselves as clearly as we can and accept that, like us, others will make up their own minds.
I do not think that we humans are particularly good and drawing "correct" conclusions. I think we are pretty good at choosing what makes us feel good - even if it doesn't make sense. And, when you think about it THAT makes sense: choosing to feel good over choosing to make sense is EXACTLY what an irrational feeling machine would do.
So if it makes us feel good to believe that our soul goes to heaven when we die, no matter what evidence is, or is not, available, we will interpret the evidence in such a way that it supports our worldview - or we will ignore it.
And if it makes us feel good to believe that we don't have a soul and that everything can be explained using physical laws, we will interpret the evidence in such a way that that worldview is supported.
It seems rare for humans to simply say, "I don't know." (Saying "I don't know" makes us feel uncomfortable.)
As a small sample in support of that statement, witness the bulk of this conversation.
Does anyone here know what happens after we die - absolutely not - and yet very few of us are willing to accept that. (In fact, that I will say that, unequivocally, will likely draw out a few comments about how I don't know that they don't know ... because of ... [pick an explanation.])
But my point is: it doesn't matter if people understand and accept your point of view. It's enough that you do.
Comment deleted
Christophe Cop 500+
There are degrees of wrong: http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html
Please read this article written by Isaac Asimov... he explains it better than I can.
in short: 50% error is more wrong than 10% error is more wrong than 0.1% error.
If you think all wrongs are equal, and derive that science is wrong, you are more wrong than those two wrongs together.
And Yes, we could be completely wrong about everything (though i does not seem that way, given our posibility to predict a lot of stuf); but it is better to base your ideas on facts (limited information) than on nothing at all... Some people call it inductive reasoning
Colleen Steen 500+
Scientific research provides the "current answers", and as with any other exploration, when we get new information, our answers may change at times. If we are "stuck" with what detail is "right" and which one is "wrong", we may miss the exploration, and thereby limit ourselves:>)
Colleen Steen 500+
Farrukh's comments were not at all "far fetched" and his ideas are "not in contradiction with science" as you have stated. They did however, seem to be in contradiction with what you are willing to open your mind to. Too bad we lost him from this discussion.
I agree with Cole Barnshaw's recent post in this thread. You "correct others" when Cole does not have the energy to do so. What kind of discussions evolve however, when a person needs always to "correct others"?
Christophe Cop 500+
There is this saying ( Matthew 7:3) that is in my opinion incomplete:
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
I say: "Help each other to remove each other's specks and planks, so you can both see more clearly." (actually, in the Apocrypha Gospel of Thomas, it is stated like that).
I also regret that Farrukh's posts have disappeared...
There is no contradiction between an open mind and a logical mind.
But I don't mind I might give you the impression of audacity...
or like Birdia puts it:
"[some] people tend to mistake confidence for arrogance"
I don't have the energy to be gentle with everybody who might be offended with what I say or think.
Colleen Steen 500+
We are here to support each other in our life journey..."help each other to remove each other's specks and planks, so you can both see more clearly".
The only contradiction between an open mind and a logical mind comes when one is stuck in his/her own logic, and fails to be open minded to someone else's logic. How about being gentle with yourself and allow yourself to honestly see all the specks and planks without judgement?
I don't agree that people "mistake confidence for arrogance". Confident people will generally be open to new thoughts, feelings, ideas and opinions.
kaka dada
Cop is saying 3 + 3 = 6
and you are asking why don't one accept the possibility of being 7
Colleen Steen 500+
As humans, we continually evolve beyond certain scientific beliefs...that is how we grow, learn and evolve as a species:>) I'm open to the idea that 3+3=6 is a mathamatical construct in the human life experience, and may not be correct in other life forms:>)
I'm sure you know the fact that we have energy moving through our body and mind has been proven scientifically. The next question is...where does that energy go when the body dies? That is the topic of this discussion.
Christophe Cop 500+
As for the energy through the body (as indeed that is the topic in this part of the conversation):
- Thermodynamics and laws of entropy can be seen as a fact.
- The energy that flows through the brains is partly chemical/molecular (synapses, neurotransmitters) and partly electric (neuronal signal, triggered by sodium/potassium differential)
These energy flows are fed by the cell's metabolism that needs sugars and oxygen.
When the blood stops flowing through the brain, and the oxygen is all burned, the energy flow stops... And the neurons start to die (you see this in stroke trauma's).
When the brain ceases to function, the energy-flow ceases.
The process of decomposition is the sum of all the molecules and cells that start to lose more and more energy, as the chemical reactions follow the chain of entropy.
The energy in the atoms (nuclear energy) stays the same
the molecular energy falls down (through heat) until the remainder molecules are stable.
The electrical energy is lost when the membranes of the cells get torn and add to the chemical reactions
So the energy goes to heat.
You are free to put forth another hypothesis. For example: If there is such thing as "soul"-energy, it should be measure-able and maybe even isolated and captured. (place a dying brain in a (air and magnetic) sealed tank filled with energy sensors of all kind, and see what happens)
kaka dada
thats how i was forced to believe there is Big guy up there in Heaven who watches every move i make but i'm sorry Colleen it didn't make me grow.
Frans Kellner 100+
kaka dada
Colleen Steen 500+
When I said we evolve beyond certain scientific beliefs, I was thinking that we move to more advanced scientific beliefs. Sorry I was not more clear with that statement.
I also had the experience as a child, with people trying to force me to believe "there is a big guy up there in heaven who watches every move i make". That never made sense to me even as a child. As I grew to be an adult, I realized I could make my own choices based on information I had at any given time. The information I consider is from many different sources. Nothing to be sorry about kaka dada...it is all part of the life exploration:>)
Colleen Steen 500+
I accept and appreciate you exactly as you are, and do not care to compare my open mindedness with your open mindedness:>) I have simply been encouraging a dialogue that includes and welcomes ideas that may be new to some people:>)
In many respects, we're on the same page. I have never questioned the dying process, which you have explained very well. After sitting with many dying people, I can probably tell you the order in which the organs start to fail, but that is not the topic of this discussion.
I agree...."the energy flow ceases" when we die. In my perception, it ceases to flow through the body, and changes form.
I do not agree that "the electrical energy is lost". I believe it changes form, and that is what we call the spirit/soul/life force energy. That is the idea Farrukh explained much better than I can. It was this idea you called "far fetched" and said it did not support any other comment on this thread, which is not true. Several of us on this thread have presented this theory:>)
I do not have a "dying brain" available to me, but scientists are doing just fine with similar experiments:>) Thanks for your openmindedness:>)
Colleen Steen 500+
Thanks for that link...I LOVE it of course!!!
As a younger person, I worked as an Operating Room Technician/Surgical Assistant, so I've seen lots of interesting "scenes". As an older person, I've volunteered in a terminal care facility, and I've been with several friends and relatives when they died. Then of course, there's my own NDE/OBE, which happened after a head/brain injury and craniotomy, as life support systems were keeping the body alive:>) I've also done a lot of research on the topic over the years.
I got a kick out of the video because it reminded me of going back to ICU to visit the people who took care of me there. The director of ICU showed me the room I was in when I was unconscious, close to death, and hooked up to life support systems. I described the room as I saw it from above, and he was quite amazed that I knew how the room was set up...I was unconscious and very close to death according to the medical model:>)
Frans Kellner 100+
Thought you would like it. One has to see with or without their own eyes to know. At the age of 19 I had a heavy road accident and was fully unconscious until I waked up in the hospital. Yet did I answer questions in the ambulance about my identity and security and I have a memory of it. And also that I had a vision on the same moment from inside as well as outside the ambulance. The answers I provided were out of the database that wasn't yet updated because some facts weren't actuated.
@Christophe
Over thermodynamics. Do I say something stupid as I think that entropy decreases in living systems during their development in ever more complex order?
Colleen Steen 500+
(Marcel Proust)
Thanks for sharing a piece of your story Frans, and glad you're still here:>)
There is so much information regarding this topic, I am amazed that some people still hide their heads in the sand...but...that's life in this earth school:>)
Personally, I feel that the spirit/soul/energy state of being is more "real" than the earth school. I am looking forward to going back to my real home again,when I'm finished here:>)
Christophe Cop 500+
Local decreases in Entropy don't violate the laws of thermodynamics...
If you look at each specific reaction that happens, we see that it is always an increase though...
So it is not stupid. It is incomplete
Colleen Steen 500+
You are absolutely right! "Certain observations and established facts have a body of evidence that can not be ignored, and need to be taken into account within the new (forming) theory".
"Be open minded, but not so open minded your brain falls out".
I agree with THAT Christophe!!! Perfer to keep my brains inside at this point...LOL:>)
Jang hun
Definition problems are everywhere..
I curious about this question, do you think everything is energy?
I mean, do you think "soul or your thoughts" are energy?
I doubt it..
Sabin Muntean 30+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Comment deleted
Thomas Jones 100+
Comment deleted
Thomas Jones 100+
I don't mind if you don't answer my question. (And I forget what your question was ... it's no longer in this thread ... )
Unless you think continuing our discussion will advance the topic, I don't think we need to continue.
My point is a simple one: We know or we don't. And ...
Stories, explanations and beliefs, no matter how complete and compelling, do not constitute knowing.
Comment deleted
Thomas Jones 100+
Doesn't it depend on what the "something" we experience is; and what conclusions we draw from the experience?
There are many people who have experienced "something" and use it as confirmation of a belief.
Let's say a Christian - who believes everyone will go to hell if they do not accept Christ - has an "experience" in prayer: the heavens part, the light shines down and his or her heart is filled with bliss; they experience Christ embracing them.
Is that confirmation of their belief?
Does that mean the Christian is "right" and all non-Christians are going to hell? Does that mean the Christian "knows" what will happen after we die?
[Notice how you respond to this suggestion.]
Now, let's say someone else believes in samsara and they practice a little pranayama and enter samadhi - their astral body ascends and they dance a kirtan with Krishna.
Does that confirm their belief? Are we all destined to experience the cycle of birth and death until we achieve moksha? Does that mean they "know" what will happen after we die?
[Notice how you respond to this suggestion.]
Transcendant experiences are quite common (or, at least, they are not as rare as some would think) ... the fact that we often use them as confirmation of our belief systems is, in my opinion, a mistake.
I have no objection to anyone believing anything. I don't even mind if people say they know what happens after we die. I don't believe them; but I don't mind.*
Sometimes, room for a little larrière-pensée can be a good thing.
-----------------
* This does not imply that what they believe is "wrong." The Christian could be right, so could the Hindu, or the atheists, or you. Who knows, maybe everyone is "right." Maybe everyone is "wrong."
The point is, no matter how fervent they believe, they, and you, do not know what happens after we die. You might think you do but you don't
Frans Kellner 100+
Language resides only withiin common experiences.
Comment deleted
Thomas Jones 100+
I had to look it up.
QUOTE: "Thus, the difference between someone who 'believes' something (intellectually) verses someone who *knows* something experientially. Gaining information is not the same as gaining knowledge."
That is also my point.
QUOTE: "While it is certainly within your right to choose not to believe me, it is not within your right to make any claim as to what I do or do not *know*, regardless of how fervently you disbelieve."
Normally, I would agree with you but in this case, I can safely say: You do not know what happens after we die.
I would make the same assertion to anyone else who suggests they do.
(And I'm not sure what "right" has to do with it.)
Kathy, I am beginning to find this tedious so I will sign off. Feel free to have the last word.
Jacob Miller 10+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
What is a soul needs to be constituted.I doubt you or Kathy can accurately tell me what a soul is simply.
I am agnostic on the topic. I fall under the thoughts of earth being like a Gaia. A mother planet who harbors our energies into cycles. My question here is: what degree do these "energies" or "souls" reincarnate? Is it mainly just pure resources? Nothing abstract.. or is it an empirical level of energy in which "consciousness" is alive in a sense??
Whether a soul exist or not, does not matter, what matters is making sure you have a good one. lol.
Comment deleted
Thomas Jones 100+
By personal experience, are you suggesting that you have died?
By the way, a well written, but flawed, intellectual response. Although from a "spiritual" perspective, I suggest it is a little violent. (I suspect you know what I mean.)
Comment deleted
Thomas Jones 100+
Would you accept a near pay cheque; or a near husband; or a near flight (well, folks, we almost made it to Montreal.)
To grasp a little of what I mean by "spiritually violent" ... you might read your post and imagine what it sounds like from the perspective of someone who has not shared your experience.
[I am assuming you operate from within a spiritual paradigm ... please, correct me if I am mistaken.]
Comment deleted
Thomas Jones 100+
Yes, I know.
Can you think of a better way of finding out what happens after we die than actually dying?
Can you think of any way of finding out - other than dying?
QUOTE: "... experience trumps supposition and opinion hands down."
Yes, I agree. And what is your EXPERIENCE of death; and your experience of what happens AFTER? (Not your supposition and opinion.)
And I return to my question: Have you died? (Not almost died.)
If you have, please share your experience. I, for one, would be happy to hear it. (Really.)
As to how "scientific medical doctors" refer to NDEs: I think you will find they make a distinction between "clinical death" and "actual death."
QUOTE: "Yes, you could say I 'operate within a spiritual paradigm' ... but what does that mean to you?"
It means I should approach you in manner that might conform to, and be understood by, someone who operates from within a spiritual paradigm. That's all.
Comment deleted
Thomas Jones 100+
Yes, sanatana-dharma, the eternal religion. Atman transitions through the perpetual cycle of samsara - repeated birth and death, influenced by desire and karma.
We are "trapped" within a world of maya passing through six classes of life: aquatics; plants; reptiles and insects; birds; animals and; humans, and celestial beings; until we obtain liberation or moksha by achieving atma-jnana through some practice; say, Bhakti, Karma, Jnana, or Raja yoga. And so on.
Now, do you know this; or do you believe this?
If you know this - namaste.
If you don't know this; I recommend to make atma-jnana your only priority. If you succeed, let me know.
Comment deleted
Thomas Jones 100+
When a rain drop falls in the ocean. Two things happen: the drop merges with the ocean. And the ocean merges with the drop.
What level will the drop be?
Comment deleted
Thomas Jones 100+
I understand you have an in-dpeth understanding of your worldview. It makes sense to you. It provides focus, direction, purpose and meaning.
However, insofar as your worldview is a human construct (explanation of reality), it is no different than any other.
You make assertions that you believe to be true (they might be) but unless you know, you don't know.
You qualify your statements, for example: "my conscious body (the true 'me', the essence of what makes me who I am) has memory of all my previous life experiences, which of course include all the death experiences."
Your "conscious body .. has memory of all [your] previous life experiences?" Obviously, you believe this to be true. But do you, Kathy, have memory of all your previous life and death experiences?
If you do, fine.
If you don't, fine.
Admirably, you acknowledge that you do not "know" with statements like "...it is my understanding that ..." but then you fall back into the internal coherence of your "story" which leads you to speak as if you do know.
It is not necessary for you to expound on your worldview (I know it quite well) ... my point is simply this: You either know or you don't know.
If you know, fine.
If you don't know, fine.
Explanations, no matter how all-encompassing, do not qualify as knowing.
So, Kathy, based on your own personal experience, do you know what happens after we die?
I have asked this question to many people; and, no matter how ardently they believe in their worldview, most say, "No." [But they may have a strong opinion.]
Many others say they do know what happens and base their certainty on particular models of reality: Some "Scientists" will say, "nothing, we cease to exist;" Some "Muslims" say, "It is the will of Allah;" Some Christians say, "We go to heaven;" Some "Hindus" say, essentially what you say; and so on. Some of us who are open minded say, "Whatever you believe will happen, will happen."
Fine.
But my point is: We either know or we don't.
Thomas Jones 100+
This is mere tautology and is essentially meaningless.
Comment deleted
Tambra Tice