Life after death,but different as you used to know!

So shooting people may not be so bad after all ?
...and please confuse the guns that u buy with their spiritual function u did not buy !
(Sorry, I couldn't resist)

not lethal, just inconvenient


Their spiritual functions remain immune to gunfire.





David

(Note edit).
You have some great characters on that committee called "self"!

A zebra has more than 1 stripe.





David

If he had only 1 stripe, woud that make him a skunk ?

Too true !

Because I consider what I do not know to be the stuff I do not know.



Perhaps.

Forget it.
I know this "radio and radio-wave"-discussion about NDE.
But you let it look like a fact,but it's everything but that.
This sort of soul can't be measured,and as long this can't be measured,
we must (!) in the will of science assume that there isn't anythin like a soul,because till now there is now evidence for it.
Same for NDE,we must assume it as hallucination.
We need this materialistic view,to have solid base for this discussion.

Well, I need not contribute further to your thread; that means little to me,
but I am not going to "forget it".

I have had several out-of-body experiences (tho not in this century).
I enjoyed them. I 'd love to have more of them.

U r perfectly welcome to deem them to be "hallucinations".
No harm will come from that.






I deny that we "must" assume what u wanna assume,
but u r certainly free to do so if u wanna. I support free speech.







If u want, u can assume that heavier-than-air travel is impossible.
Its your choice. I will not inhibit it.





U 'll do want u want. So be it.
I have a quantum-based hunch that there is a more intimate relationship
between consciousness and the universe that u choose to admit,
but I hope that u 'll have fun with your materialism; its harmless.
I wonder if u also deny the existence of the mind?
Is the mind in the brain?? In your anti-materialism, do u deny the existence of consciousness?
Do u measure consciousness? Do u measure life?
Do u measure fear?

Good luck with your measurements; lemme know how that works out.





David

I suggest you read up on attempted biological definitions of "life"(e.g autopoiesis) before wandering out into the nebulous metaphysical world of "generators of personal existence".

If our friend sought to measure the life
in the abandoned exoskeleton of a molted lobster,
presumably, he 'd conclude that the animal 's life was lost,
having measured his former outer covering.





David

Hollow phrases and meaningless dispute,all that but no content.
Because it's my thread,I have the freedom to make the main topic science-friendly,not allowing any spongy metaphysicial concepts no one can prove,like for example the soul,NDE and OBE.If I would allow that,anyone can come up with he's unicorn-flowerpower-rubbish,and the central theme would get lost.
To the questions,at the end of your post,I assume what empiricism assumes,read up on that.

And if you have a"a quantum-based hunch that there is a more intimate relationship between consciousness and the universe"
then give some sources and supporting documents that let you came to this statement.
Anyone can come "I read something about quantum physics,thats why think there something between conscoiusness and the universe."




(Don't understand me wrong,I have nothing against an metaphysicial interpretation or the concept of a soul,but for this thread i want the base of the discussion to be science.)

I found something interesting,that's exactly what I'm trying to tell you:
From here http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/death/ :

"1.1 The Permanence of Death

‘Death’ is also unclear in at least two ways. First, the concept of life is not entirely clear. For example, suppose we could construct a machine, the HAL 1.01, with (nearly) all of the psychological attributes of persons: would HAL 1.01 be alive? To the extent that we are puzzled about what life entails, we will be puzzled about what is entailed by the ending of life, that is, death. (For accounts of life, see Van Inwagen 1990 or Luper 2009.) Second, it seems somewhat indeterminate whether a temporary ending of life suffices for death, or whether death entails a permanent loss of life. Usually, whenever a creature's life stops, the condition is permanent; so ‘death’, as commonly used, need not be sensitive to the distinction between the temporary and permanent ending of life. Yet life may stop temporarily: a life might be suspended then revived. Or it might be restored. Life in the case of seeds and spores is suspended indefinitely. Freezing frogs and human embryos suspends their lives, too. Suppose that I were frozen and later revived: it is tempting to say that my life stops while I am frozen —I am in a state of suspended animation. But I am not dead. Now imagine a futuristic device, the Disassembler-Reassembler, that reduces me to small cubes, or individual cells, or disconnected atoms, which it stores and later reassembles just as they were before. Many of us will say that I would survive—my life would continue—after Reassembly, but it is quite clear that I would not live during intervals when my atoms are stacked in storage. I would not even exist during such intervals; Disassembly kills me. After I cease to exist, presumably I cannot be revived; nor can my vital processes be revived. If I can be Reassembled, my life would be restored, not revived. Restoration, not revival, is a way of bringing a creature back from the dead.

Assuming that creatures whose lives are suspended are not dead, but creatures who are Disassembled are dead even if later Reassembled, it might be best to say that a creature has died just when its vital processes are irreversibly discontinued, that is, when its vital processes can no longer be revived. "

I prefer the article's quotation from Epicurius because I cannot imagine that it is not true:
"Death [presumably] the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seing that, when we are, death is not come, and, when death is come, we are not."

In addition, I always ask: When I die, i.e., when I cease to exist, who is it that is dead?

Such a question is only for the living to ponder. Those who are dead are dead.

No.1 opinion is right