death

Re: truth


You're missing my point entirely. Let's just set aside my beliefs for a moment. What I am saying to you is that no one human being can say with absolute certainty what, if anything, happens after we die. I was simply saying to you that you made a statement and that it is not too far out of line for a statement to be thought of as words of certainty. I am certain no one has the proof to say what does or does not happen after we die. Am I wrong to state this?

caprice, You are not wrong to say "this." However, most of us arrive at our conclusions about most things in life (and death) from observable proof of claim. Life after death has none - except in the bible - and I have chosen not to believe in a fictional book.

Cicerone,

I have to disagree with you on a couple of points.

First of all, there are many more claims of life after death than the Bible. Some sort of life after death is a central belief in numerous cultures from Ancient Egyptian to Aztec to (Asian) Indian to Judeo-Christian to the Allysian Fields and Vahalla. Jesus is not the only cultural figure who alledgedly rose from the dead. Heck, he wasn't even the first--not by a long shot.

Secondly, there is no "observable proof of claim" about what happens after death. This does not support your conclusion any more than it supports *any* conclusion.
---------
"Strange is it not? The myriad who
Before us passed the Door of Darkness thro',
Not one returns to tell us of the Road
Which to discover we must travel too".
-- "The Rubaiyat" - Omar Khayyam

ebrown, I have observed the mummified remains of Ramses II a couple of times. He's dead and gone, even if they "believed" he will have an after-life. My wife is a buddhist, and believes she will return as a reincarnate of something. I choose not to believe in that religion's teachings, because buddha was a human like you and I. At least buddha was not a fictional character like jesus. "Observable proof of claim" of life after death goes nowhere, no matter how much you wish to stretch that claim.

truth
Caprice, no I understood you. I just disagree, but that's alright. Your view is widely held, as ebrown has shown. But that does not make it so. I agree with Cicerone's view, but we could be wrong. What I like is the knowledge that Reality is what it is, regardless of our beliefs. We can count on that--for sure.

Transmigration of souls is a remarkable concept. At least as fantastic as Jesus and Heaven. But I have no quarrel with ones who believe any of it. Just leave me out is all I ask.

My self-awareness is so unique that it needs me (itself) to exist. I cannot imagine anything without it. I cannot imagine what would happen if I was never born. Seems totally impossible.
And I cannot pretend I can think about 'others' in the same way - this is simply absurd. Death is a non-expirience, I agree with that.
And non-existence is an impossibility for self and of itself. It is possible for others, but not for self.
When I'd realized that as a young boy it came as a shock for me: and even greater shock after I
'd realized everybody has that same experience.
It seems to me at this moment that all self is one and awareness is just one. When one pops out of existence, nothing really happens to awareness or self - there is no other possibility - but this to be just impossible from a self's perspective. It cannot really happen, because we cannot experience it.

... and. There is another possibility that hasn't been discussed.

The only way I experience the Universe is through my perception of it. My perception is reality. There is nothing more.

You all can argue about what is "true" but it won't do any good. There is no way to prove it and you all are limited by your perceptions.

But just consider this....

The Universe was created the instant I gained a consciousness. The Universe will cease to exist when I die.

This is as true as anything else said here.

No it isn't.

It isn't, for instance, as true as:

I really don't know what the truth is.

It may be what you are suggesting -- and then again, it may not be.

It couldn't possibly be what he is suggesting. It's absurd.

It would be true if he were god. Or if everyone else was part of his grand delusion, and only popped into existence when we meet him. Our perceptions do not alter reality.

I am not saying our perceptions alter reality. Our perceptions are reality.

There may be a "true" reality, but it is completely inaccessible to us. Arguing about what is the "true reality" is a very pointless exercise.

I have no way of knowing what a true reality would be. I only have my perceptions. It is quite possible that there is a "true" reality, but there is no way for me to know what that is. I am sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you are in the same boat.

I am relying on what I perceive now and on what I know from what I have perceived in the past. There is no way for me to know if any of these perceptions are "accurate" or if someone has perceived or interpreted them in a completely different. Furthermore there may be more information that we don't have access to that would completely change our view of reality...

I am not claiming to be "God" and my conclusions (based on my perceptions) are no more "delusions" than the assumptions you are making.

"view of reality" is an acceptable term; "Reality" is not. If my view of reality WERE in fact reality, than if I believe that God exists he does, and if I don't he doesn't. When in fact, my view on the subject does not influence his existence.

My question is "what is reality"? You haven't given me any good answer.

Let's imagine (with a nod toward Plato's cave) that you are born and raised in a 6X6X6 white room. During this time you are given (colorless) food and water through a small white tunnel, but have no contact with anyone else.

Would you have any idea about reality? Would you understand what it meant to be human? Would you understand what color was? Would you have any idea of Democracy of Love or stars?

I think not. Your firm belief would be that the Universe is very small, lonely and colorless. That would be your reality. You may believe that some being (God) was providing you with food and water.

To this person, what is the difference between "view of reality" and reality. This person has no possible way to understand what (our) reality is. In fact, if we were to let this person out (again with deference to Plato) this person would be incapable of even understanding our "reality" and may prefer to return to the white room.

Furthermore, if we were clumsy in this experiment. The person in the room may hear us talking and walking around. Perhaps these noises will corresond to when the food arrives. What will the person think? He may equate this with God or who knows what. But this person would never imagine who we were?

So what is the use in speaking about the difference between "view of reality" and reality.

We are just like the person in the room. We are very limited in what we see and experience. Our senses are limited and we need to rely on ourselves to experience what we sense.

We only see a small portion of our own Universe. We only can experience three dimensions. Who knows what else other beings could experience? Who knows what I am misinterpreting.

So, I don't think it does any good to speak of "Reality". There may be a "reality" but it is completely inaccessible to you.

My point is that what you percieve is all you get. You need to construct your own reality based on that.

(BTW this ideas are not original. See, for example ...
http://www.constitution.org/pla/repub_07.htm

But I am certain of one thing. When I die, you all cease to exist in the Universe I experience. (So you better be nice to me.)

Your example is horrible, and supports my view on the difference. Only his view of reality would be altered. Reality is what IS real, regardless of how we view it.

OK, I accept your definition. "Reality is what is real."

But you must admit this is kind of silly. It doesn't explain anything. I could just as well say "Foobishness is what is foobish."

You still haven't told me anything useful about this thing you are calling "reality". You have no way of knowing if you or me or anyone else experiences this "reality". Assuming that your your experience reflects some part of "reality", do you know that anyone experiences the same thing?

How do you know this "real reality" doesn't involve you being in a coma. You could be dreaming this conversation, your co-workers, your family-- even the chair you are sitting in. This may sound far fetched, but go ahead... prove that it isn't true? It is impossible for you to do.

You are using the word "reality" and the only definition is that it is "real". But this term is utterly useless. It describes nothing and shows nothing. It can't be tested and you have no way of knowing anything about it.

You may think that your ideas and your perceptions my reflect some part of reality, but ultimately you must admit that there is no way to be sure. Your beliefs and your existance may have nothing at all to do with this reality.

However, my "perception" is somthing that I can be sure about. I define it and I interpret it. I live it and to me it is reality.

Your view of "reality" is vague and useless. My view of reality is based on what I experience.

And sorry, when I go-- at least in my reality-- you are all goners.

Touche! Now that's a post I can agree with! ...mostly. Oh, by the way, I can prove that I exist, 'cus I asked a guy I work with, and he was all "What? Yeah, you exist."

truth
Ebrown, points well taken.

We must be cautious on what we believe to be our reality, because we do have a very limited number of dimensions we live under. Our thinking and thought processes are unobservable, and therefore, unprovable. Sort of a catch-22.

Re: truth


Let me get this straight. I say no one can know with absolute certainty what happens after we die. You disagree with that. You know something the rest of us don't???