Death....is it the end?

[arkain101]

THe mind simply doesn't wish to accept it will once dissapear and it will end

 

What PREVENTS the universe from accepting it will end and dissapear? If it could accept it could end would it not go where it came from?

 

it agreebly cant now end.

 

In the worse case scenario, it could go end up in mass collapse but would still be.

 

I think one fact alone can hold evidence for science and spiritualt.

 

It is here.

[sergey500]

What PREVENTS the universe from accepting it will end and dissapear? If it could accept it could end would it not go where it came from?

 

it agreebly cant now end.

 

In the worse case scenario, it could go end up in mass collapse but would still be.

 

I think one fact alone can hold evidence for science and spiritualt.

 

It is here.

 

Um...Nothing. The universe can't accept anything...it doesn't have mind of its own. It doesn't really have a choice, whatever happens depend on the individual objects. LIke imagin that all you're cells did anything they wanted, wtih any DNA to follow, they would do ...anything so you're body would depend on that. Same with universe.

 

What are you talking about? What one fact?

[InfiniteNow]

Um...Nothing. The universe can't accept anything...it doesn't have mind of its own. It doesn't really have a choice, whatever happens depend on the individual objects. LIke imagin that all you're cells did anything they wanted, wtih any DNA to follow, they would do ...anything so you're body would depend on that. Same with universe.

sergey500, you're just perpetuating the universe's denial... that's the first stage you know... The universe is just deluding itself that it will never die. I mean, it's sad really. I just wish I could tell it, but I don't have the heart. :(

 

 

After all, you are part of the universe and you clearly don't accept it. The logic is incontrovertable... :(

[sergey500]

Wrong logic. I believe in my own logic, regardless of which logic you use. I can always accept other information from other people, but not htere logic. The universe is nonliving entity. I don't give rats *** abotu spirtuality of it all, all it is space where objects reside, like air. Air is not living, it doesn't have mind, it doesn't make choices, nither does the universe. Universe isn't deluding anything, even if it was living entity, like all living entities it knows damn well it doesn't have forever and it will collapse...or die, if you will....eventually, nothing last forever and I am sure if the universe was living and hads it own mind it would know htis well.

[InfiniteNow]

Wrong logic. I believe in my own logic, regardless of which logic you use. I can always accept other information from other people, but not htere logic. The universe is nonliving entity. I don't give rats *** abotu spirtuality of it all, all it is space where objects reside, like air. Air is not living, it doesn't have mind, it doesn't make choices, nither does the universe. Universe isn't deluding anything, even if it was living entity, like all living entities it knows damn well it doesn't have forever and it will collapse...or die, if you will....eventually, nothing last forever and I am sure if the universe was living and hads it own mind it would know htis well.

Okay, so, I can see you totally missed the point of my post... but, leaving that aside for now... and, as long as you bring it up like you did above...

 

Any support for this? If it's opinion only, that's fine, but I ask that you acknowledge that. If not opinion, I ask again... please provide support.

 

 

 

Warmest regards,

[sergey500]

Ok....what was you're orginal point?

 

Proof? Fine, nothing but theory of my own. People THINK only when they have large enough brain to develope a personality. This works, or so i think, when data is continously sync'd with new data comming in. The continous stream of data eventually develops an awareness of one self, question arise. Depending on how you mind can answer the question, will show how you're personality will develop. Also brain patterns, nerve routes, allignment, shorter ones and longer ones create different personalities. Look at twins, for that proof, they have similar brain pattern design so they develop similar personalities. Thus though.

 

Low animals in animal kingdom do not have personalities, thus do not have thought. Just instincts and responses. But even for that a brain is need and a solid entity where to keep it and use it. Seeing how nonliving things and espically air and space do not pocess this...they do not think. So the universe won't think of its own demise...ever.

[InfiniteNow]

Ok....what was you're orginal point?

Sarcasm. :(

 

 

Proof? Fine, nothing but theory of my own. People THINK only when they have large enough brain to develope a personality. This works, or so i think, when data is continously sync'd with new data comming in. The continous stream of data eventually develops an awareness of one self, question arise. Depending on how you mind can answer the question, will show how you're personality will develop.

Brain size has very little to do with thinking. You seem to see consciousness as analogous to a computer processor. Let me try to explain as best I can.

 

Even fruit flies can be shown to engage in decision-making processes... behavior which itself could be interpreted as "personality." Further, brain size has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. If it did, then Blue Whales would be the smartest creatures on the planet. It has more to do with organization and efficiency of the thinker and the mechanisms involved.

 

The concept of personality, what that is and where it comes from, is still being debated. Do you have any information to justify your statement "...large enough brain to develope a personality?" Here's some brief support of my position:

 

http://www.personality-project.org/

 

 

Also brain patterns, nerve routes, allignment, shorter ones and longer ones create different personalities. Look at twins, for that proof, they have similar brain pattern design so they develop similar personalities. Thus though.

That's complete nonsense. I know twins who couldn't be more different. Human twins start off with similar genetic predispositions, but after that, the similarity ends. The "brain patterns" you mention are a result of experience and nothing else. Every interaction they have with the world around them (and with their internal environment as well... think healing from illness or anxiety/fear, etc) will change the wiring of their brain.

 

The more they experience similar stimuli, the more those particular nerve branches will grow. New synaptic and dendritic connections form and the number of nerve connections used in this grows exponentially. The ones that don't get used that often die out. "Use it or lose it." Think of erosion... the more water goes down a particular path, the deeper that path (or groove) becomes. It's the same with neuronal wiring. The more it's used, the more ingrained it is.

 

Low animals in animal kingdom do not have personalities, thus do not have thought. Just instincts and responses. But even for that a brain is need and a solid entity where to keep it and use it.

Tell me, sergey, what's a "low animal?" Does that mean they are vertically challenged (that means "short" to the lesser understanding...) Like most people who use a term like this, you are most likely thinking of cats, dogs, rabbits, birds, and so forth... but you could ask anybody you know who has ever lived with a cat or dog or otherwise if that animal has a personality. They'd invariably say yes. That was just a very poor and ignorant statement to make. I do not mean to imply that you as an individual are ignorant, but that statement, and many others you've made here have absolutely no merit.

 

Seeing how nonliving things and espically air and space do not pocess this...they do not think. So the universe won't think of its own demise...ever.

I ask again... proof?

 

 

You said the universe is a non-living entity. Support this, or retract it.

 

You said air is not living, it doesn't have mind, it doesn't make choices, neither does the universe. Okay. Why not? Show me a study that demonstrates this... a study where the parameters and measurements are solid and not in question.

 

 

You were so intent on attacking that you didn't even realize I was supporting your original point. Half the things mentioned in this thread I don't necessarily agree with, but I do feel that the statements we make should be supported.

 

:dog:

[sergey500]

Amusing, this is.

 

No i wasn't being sarcastic, if I missed your point, I would like to know what it is. Don't leave me in dark, tell me, what did you have on your mind?

 

I am sorry, but this is a theory i developed for myself, by myself. Oh right, then its not a theory....my conclusion through my thought expirment was that. There we go, better rephrased. Oh but you are right, I do see a conscious as analogous to a computer processor, this how I solve most mysteries of life for myself. Through programming, I use logic, and through logic i develope ideas...such as this one.

 

Well no, that is not what I see when I follow minor animals such as fruit flies, they, as i mentioned, simply are engaging in instinct. IN their situation, instinct (hard wired thoughts) conflict. No personality is in use. All follow the same genetic code, unless something is altered.

 

....Whales? I was aware that an octupus had the largest brain. Yes in fact I am sure that what it was, whales have small brains. Yet octupus has a certain level of consciousness, they have their own personalitiers in what they taste or how they display themselfes, similar how primates do (mating reason are an exception to all animals, that simply hardwired, not a personality thing).

 

I think of personality as individual thoughts that create an individual conscious. But you see, this is the joy of science, practicly EVERYTHING is being debated and it more of a race, who will find the right answer first. Thrilling, no?

 

No, I find that there is acutelly different levels of twins. I do not know how i can justify this in anyway or even explain it, but when i find the proper words and examples I will. Anyways, expierence and the outside enviroment DOES play the whole role. I said how the previous data gets sync'd with new...so where does the old and new come from? The enviroment. The brain patterns I am talking about, are just different routes. Exactly, but I am saying HOW they grow will show an outcome of the personality.

 

No, I did not mean all lower animals. And you damn well what i meant, no need to say "lesser understanding" because that sounds quite offending if pondered upon. Well this is where my whole idea came from, my teacher asked (just out of the blue) if her dog has a personality and launched into this discussion and developedd some ideas...like the ones above. But her reason for thinking her dog has personality, is because she said he likes different foofs and other different things. Well then, a dog and other domestic animals seem to develope a personality, why? ....I dunno....I will find out eventually though. And please, tell me in every way how that one sentence was ingorant? When i specificly said in first sentence well this is my theory so....etc. This is my opinion, not facts written in stone.

 

 

 

 

 

Proof? My best physical proof are twins other than that I am dry out of ideas. That why this is my conclusion. But, let see, I can't provide any most definate proof the universe is not a living entiry, but why don't you proove to me that it is.

 

But I did notice something...dogs and other minor animals are in somewhat a low animal scale (in my opinion) but yet they develop characterisitcs outside there own genes and hard wired thoughts...I will get back to that question later.

 

Oh and yeah, sorry, I did attack without thinking...but I always do that. If there sligthest thing I don't disagree on I will launch into this whole annoying troublesome arugement...and if any of those happen (this doesn't count, not that long) I just point at my signature. Or continue debating until one of us gives up.

[InfiniteNow]

Amusing, this is.

 

No i wasn't being sarcastic, if I missed your point, I would like to know what it is. Don't leave me in dark, tell me, what did you have on your mind?

Hey there, Yoda... Please re-read post #55 of this thread and recognize that I was the one being sarcastic.

 

 

Well no, that is not what I see when I follow minor animals such as fruit flies, they, as i mentioned, simply are engaging in instinct. IN their situation, instinct (hard wired thoughts) conflict. No personality is in use.

This is tough to debate, because the experts really don't even know what personility is. I recognize that you are just offering your opinions. I ask, however, how do we know that we (as humans) are not doing the exact same thing you described the fruit flies as doing?

 

We don't, and, based on your tone, I'd be led to believe that you might just agree with that.

 

 

....Whales? I was aware that an octupus had the largest brain. Yes in fact I am sure that what it was, whales have small brains. Yet octupus has a certain level of consciousness, they have their own personalitiers in what they taste or how they display themselfes, similar how primates do (mating reason are an exception to all animals, that simply hardwired, not a personality thing).

Okay... so the octopus maybe has a larger brain. That I'll concede, because I am really not sure. My point though was that brain SIZE has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. Further, the point I made above applies here as well.

Consciousness? We don't really know what that is either. Considering this, how does one know the octopus has "it?" Restating the point, we don't know what makes personality, so how can you say that the octopus has this?

 

We don't, and again, based on your tone, I'd be led to believe that you might just agree with that too. Maybe my issue is in the way you state your claims... as absolutes, and without much support. Err on the side of potentially being wrong and you might see farther and more clearly into the nature around you...

 

Me too. I know that.

 

 

I think of personality as individual thoughts that create an individual conscious. But you see, this is the joy of science, practicly EVERYTHING is being debated and it more of a race, who will find the right answer first. Thrilling, no?

 

Absolutely!

 

 

No, I did not mean all lower animals. And you damn well what i meant, no need to say "lesser understanding" because that sounds quite offending if pondered upon.

<...>

And please, tell me in every way how that one sentence was ingorant? When i specificly said in first sentence well this is my theory so....etc. This is my opinion, not facts written in stone.

How would I know what you meant? You were very curt and certain with your statement.

 

To answer your question, I approached it based on my personal experience. The individuals with whom I have engaged in conversation... those who call them "lower animals," tend to do so out of ignorance and arrogance. I think the phrase implies a distinction that is unecessary and which does not exist. I feel that those who use a term such as this need to take a step back and open their eyes to the bigger picture.

 

My intention was to be (just a tad, but not very) offensive. I wanted you to hear what your comments might sound like to others. It works both ways.

 

 

Well this is where my whole idea came from, my teacher asked (just out of the blue) if her dog has a personality and launched into this discussion and developedd some ideas...like the ones above. But her reason for thinking her dog has personality, is because she said he likes different foofs and other different things. Well then, a dog and other domestic animals seem to develope a personality, why? ....I dunno....I will find out eventually though.

It's good that you are discussing this with others. That's to be commended.

 

Please note, though, that you are now contradicting yourself. First you said that "lower animals" don't have personality, and now you think they do? Which is it? Part of the confusion is that you are inconsistent with these statements. This is not meant as an attack... just pointing it out.

 

 

Proof? My best physical proof are twins other than that I am dry out of ideas. That why this is

my

conclusion. But, let see, I can't provide any most definate proof the universe is not a living entiry, but why don't you proove to me that it is.

Why are you still attacking? I feel like asking you to take a deep breath. Are your shoulders and neck tight right now? I mean... we're just having a dialogue here...

 

I never once stated that I thought the universe is a living entity, and that's partially the issue to which I was referring when I stated that I didn't agree with everything in this thread. However, I also have not said that it does not, as I have no evidence either way. This is where I take issue with your comments...

 

You claim it does not... so prove it.

 

 

Oh and yeah, sorry, I did attack without thinking...but I always do that. If there sligthest thing I don't disagree on I will launch into this whole annoying troublesome arugement...and if any of those happen (this doesn't count, not that long) I just point at my signature. Or continue debating until one of us gives up.

 

No worries. It's just a dialogue. I guess we'll keep debating then. :cocktail:

 

 

Cheers. :beer:

[arkain101]

sergey500,

I see you are pretty sticky to your own way of thinking, which I dont judge. Although however stern you are in your own right, I think you will find it is 100% agreeable that you can dissagree with previously beheld opinions.

 

Would you agree that when you remember back to around the age of 10 or so that you had a different outlook on things, a different logic than you do now?

 

If you do agree, then.

Since ones idea of logic does not remain constant as time passes by, then you must be able to agree that it is difficult to say that an opinion may not remain as your final say. But, even through all this change would you agree that what ever it is that makes up the invisible and inadimit existance inside your head has always been you, an individual?

 

If you agree with the fact that you today can say, I am, and I am me, and this thing that is you, this entity, has been all that IS in what you can claim as your existance from beginning to now.

 

If so, then lets think what aspect is involved here in this situation to allow YOU to be this particular body and personality that you are, but does not allow you to be another, what assigns this your existance or entity to your particular body and not a person on the other side of the world, or a person of a previous time.

It is not much stranger to think of this existance that you call yourself to appear in a different life, as it is for you to think of it apearing in the current one you are.

 

Obviously this opens a large section to investigate, and leaves for many explanations.

 

Would you agree that your body (brain and and everything) is more or less the messenger to whatever it is that makes up this individual you. In the sense that, if was was to remove parts of your brain, or inject cirtain chemicals that altered the proccess of your reality that the message you are being able to experience would alter and the abilities that your will commands would become different.

 

So not only are you assigned to this particular body, but this particular body can be adjusted (not unlike changing the radio channel) to give you a different report as to what exists around it through all the available stimulus. Yes, no?

 

The universe exists, agreed?

 

So it is an existance.. It is filled with particles that do none other than report to other particles in some way who they are, and recieve from others what and who they are and follow their code and messages which results in the order of the cosmos, It does these things agreed?

 

So If you have this independent YOU which is made of energy that follows the code of what matter/energy does, yet you the ability to claim you are independent, and can do more than follow this code of messages with your will and free choice, but yet always recieve that which the code setup sends to you would you agree a credible explanation of a further signicant part that makes up that which is?

 

(you may or may not agree with everything there, but since this is a forum, we'll have to deal with this line of questions.)

[sergey500]

Ok first a response to arkain101, yeah i tend to that A LOT. Almost every time I argue I almost always fall onto the other side of the arugement and argue against my previous habbit. Its has a good side to it too, you can't argue unless you understand both sides of the argument.

 

Well no and yes. I still do what I did when i was 10, argue about what I already know. But since I recieved mroe information, then my way of thinking changed slightly.

 

Yes and no again. My thought process would be considered a different personality because if i think something through, I will argue about it with my subconsicous. But yes, it was alwys there.

 

No, personality is created through individuality. That why I am me, and you are you. How we react with enviroment around us creates the personality, but thats not all. As I mentioned, the brain pattern alter that personality with your previous knowledge to form a more unique you. This personality assigned to this body was simply created, it won't last if i die and live in different live. In a different live I would form an new one depending on reasons above.

 

I never said a personality can't be altered if the brain is altered. A personality is not and immortal thing. It can be changed furthur depending on your age and experience. Like you mentioned, I thought somewhat differentyl when I was ten then how I think now.

 

Not exactly. The lving body does form messages which form a personality and thought process....BUT, only if there is some CPU if you will that would process this all. In our case, a brain. As far as we know and see, the universe doesn't have any type of CPU/brain/boss area to control itself. Thus it can not make decisions. Or I completely missed you're whole point because of the question "do you agree?" stuff.

[sergey500]

OK back to you, InfintieNow. Yeah I know double posting is bad and rude, but I couldn't post a single response to both you're questions in one box...too long. No one would read it.

 

Yoda, I am not. Funny, His speech is.I guess I am quite bad at detecting sarcasm.

 

Because frutiflies, although this being biasite (how badly did I spell that wrong?) of me, since I can't really ask a fruitfly how it feels or decides, I have to make assumption. Fruitflies find what they need to survive...in 24 hrs (which is all they have, too bad for them). We humans, already have all our rresources, so we have the rest of our brains to ourselfs. Not to mention we use only 12% max of it. Do you think our subconious will not be formed there? This subconsious will debate without our selfs what is right or wrong and make decisions...outside our normal instincts. Or so I would assume. Again, I have no evidance to proove what all our instincts say.

 

As I stated before..and in the lastpost. A concious is simple another personality created from data within you, somewhat like twin, that will debate and question you're own way of thinking. You do question you're self, do you not? That what a concious is. . . I think. But as I mentioned in last post, I have habbit of jumping from one side of debate to another, aruging each point until in very end I can find one point to agree upon.

 

Oh...well I can't say much to that. Because I consider myself to always take a step outside the big picture and look at larger picture. But as we all know, when we look at something large, we usually miss the minor details. Like look at galaxy and hoping to see each planet.

 

No and yes. I am aware i am controdicting myself. But it seems, ii don't have a definate opinion this, that animal which live along side humans...for as I can see. Seem to develope a type of bond where they form a subconicous, but I will take a look at this later. I don't exactly have an opinion.

 

Oh..I didn't even notice I was still on offense. Oops, I guess my battle read attitdue slowly got to me, sorry about that. Tends to happen every now and then.

 

I pretty sure I gave almost definate proof in my response to arkain101 in last post. Or so I tried. Find a problem with my answer? Let me now, I will wokr out the bugs.

 

Cheerios. I always wanted to say that.

[arkain101]

Yea sergy I guess most of my point got missed.

 

I was not refering to personality, I was refering to the fact when you say I am, you are stating a profound fact that in you is an existance and no further than that.

 

Maybe seeing that way will help.

[UV-gap]

Will my death be the end of my existence?

 

KiZzI :surprise:

 

And is there nothing I/We can do about it?

 

the universe and everything in it is just thoughts. The mind and its brain-body is just a thought -- exactly like a dream.

 

When the mind dies it leaves the unity of Heaven itself that physics call the Unified Field, that is the quantum-gap, and others call Samadhi and Nirvana.

 

When this Heaven-itself manifests itself to the mind it is called Kundalini that makes the mind malfunction with its thoughts to give us our "mental-diseases."

 

So the answer to your question about death: YOU ARE and ALL IS the timless Heaven it-Self that can no more die than it can be born.

[Dimsie]

Maybe reincarnation is the answer, ie our body dies but our soul/spirit is then born in another body. It's interesting that so many humans over the ages have instinctively felt that death is not the end, that there is something that comes after, either in another 'world' or back again in this one.

 

And what views do people here have on NDE's (near death experiences)?

[Loricybin]

what views do people here have on NDE's (near death experiences)?

 

well, i have had a few real close ones; Some consciously, some not.

climbing about on a cliff face, knowing that one slip would mean my end, there was a very intense impulse to find out what happens, and also a basic driving instinct to survive at all costs.

 

but i've had bike accidents in moving traffic, and been hit by a few cars, and those real quick ones i don't even see coming until after i'm face up in the street.

 

something tells me that when i DO die, i won't know it's coming. I'll never know i'm dead unless my consciousness lives on past the actual collapse of my body, because my end will probably be swift and unexpected.

 

that brings up a really tricky question . . .

will i know that i'm going to die?:hyper: (that day for example. of course i'm going to die SOMEDAY!)

[CraigD]

Welcome to hypography, Dimsie! :hyper:

… And what views do people here have on NDE's (near death experiences)?

I’m pretty sure that NDE’s are hallucinations caused by the physiology of nearly dieing - see ”My humble (but troubled) experiment” in 3401.