is that 99% of people go through their daily routines, and never think about consciousness, reality, or why we are here.  Society and expectations have been built up and that is all there is to many.  I recently spoke with an old friend, a neurosurgeon with a brilliant mind (no joke intended) who I've known forever.  I am convinced that if souls travel, than our friendship has done so, but I digress.  Anyway, he was over at an informal party and we got into a conversation on spirituality, the existence of a "soul or spirit," the nature of consciousness.  His belief was conventional but rigorously grounded in biology, physics and chemistry.  That our mind, is a product of the brain.  That our thoughts our biochemical products only.  That there is nothing after we die.  All of the rest, all of my arguments and discussions could not be proved.  However, here was a friend who had been every bit as interested in consciousness as myself.  He simply based it in conventional biology, medicine and anatomy and dismissed the spiritual.

But I saw something interesting under the surface.  Although he wanted to "trump" me with his intellect, and disprove the notion of consciousness existing outside of the brain, part of him wished it were so.  I said to him, just between us (because I wanted to get through the BS), so do you really discount the possibility that your consciousness will go on.....and he thought for a minute, and said he thought he would cease to be, but if he did continue on, he'd deal with that when the time came.

Amazing to me, that our close friends and loved ones can be so oblivious to examining consciousness and the soul, thinking outside the box (as my fellow explorer Alysia mentioned in another post), and trying to do more than achieve standard success in the Western world.

I vow though that my three year old son, the apple of my eye, will know my interest, and these ideas one day.  He may do with them what he will, but as I love him, I could not bear if he did not at least get exposed to these concepts, and possibly take them farther than I could.

Matthew

Matthew, that's good that your son is so young and you can help to shape his future. I'm sure that's why he chose you as his father.

I work with my grandchildren ages, 12, 16 and 20, but don't get anywhere...........they know it all at those ages. But I do have my 1 1/2 year old great grandson that I hope to help to love nature and spiritual/metaphysical stuff when he's old enough.  

Love, Mairlyn

It troubles me that sooo many people are stuck in C1.

It's hard trying to have a discussion about the Afterlife with those in C1. They look at you like you're insane - a wishful thinker that needs to join the 21st century of science and evolution theory.

Tis a shame that people do not realise their potential. I'm sure there would be alot more happiness in the world if people knew the truth.

Hi Matthew-
For some reason, people are unwillingto admit of more than a single viewpoint at a time. Thus, if we are members of the Big Bang Gang, then we force out thinking into a matter-dominated idiom, and pray to Friedman and Lemaitre to explain it.

However, science makes no such impositions upon us. The scientist's job is to describe, and by consistency, to predict. thus answering the "what" of the world. That does not, in fact, prevent numerous alternative descriptions of the same phenomena, each arising from a different viewpoint.

The case is rather like a social psychologist iving your lifespan close scrutiny and coming up with an airtight explanation for your personality, that expains perhaps 90% of the variance at alpha less than 1%. This is possible, and it would be considered good science. But it does not preclude your ability to review the same lifespan in terms of  your own intrapsychic drives, deep feelings and values, and thus the valid creation of a very diferent explanation using different terms. While both explanations are different, they are also valid, and a full understanding would require both perspectives to be considered,

Because these ideas are approaching the same event, our present Now, from opposite directions, they appear different. Like the left and right hands clapping. Yet our hands are part of a larger unity (connected through our shoulders), as are otherwise disparite explanations (connected through a larger logical space).

My impression is that we cling tenaciously to what we prefer because we are afraid that if we lose that we'd be lost in a sea of anomie, a terrible existential quandry, as Descartes might put it, "a sense of being cast into the midst of a sea so profound that we can neither touch our feet to the bottom, nor rise again to the top". That's not good science. The good scientist would seek the meta-persppective through which the "rantings of airey fairey freaks" could be contained as another perspective on the same topic, otherwise explained by "cold facts of scientific positivism".

Denial is a very primitive defense mechanism. Coupled with projection of an exclusively scientific reality, it locks us into a wilful blindness, while protecting us from nothing more dangerous than superior understanding.

Maybe the underlying threat associated with having an open mind, is that we would be called to be responsible for our actions. It might be nice to have a nation of deeply spiritual scientists, those willing to see both objective and subjective explanations of reality as valid. Such a nation would probably be less willing to bomb their neighbors. Since we already are born into a world of hatred and dissonances, it's probably easier to "go with the flow", and accept the economic benefits of killing, torturing and so on. As scientists, we don't need to worry.

More to the point, as exclusively materialistic scientists, we are not morally obligated to seek a better way to live. Business as usual is thus justified. Preemptive nuclear strikes are simply good business. Etc.

Were we to adopt the idea of an afterlife as a valid, well supported and extensively documented condition, then we'd have to make some changes. I don't think we're ready as yet - at least not on a national level. But that might simply reflect my own biases. There may be another side to the story. I'm willing to learn.

dave

I think a world where the afterlife is fact and accepted more where we also communicate openly with is like a dream to me lol. But i don't think that'll happen in any of our lifetimes, i do agree whats been said here the world's not ready to just drop everything, people will still on gugdes and seek revenge and people will still want to stay in control and earn loads of money etc but it'll happen its got too, people are changing in this direction more and more and more its inevitable.

People stereotype this kinda of side and i hate it (even though we stereotype almost everything which i don't like either), to be honest i don't know much of this new age stuff and haven't heard much about it, once or twice maybe.

Also going back to the actual topic of this thread lol i think from what I understand and have read sometimes people go through this life in C-1 conciousness only and wont even think about another life purly because if they did this would ruin their lessons set to be learnt here. Does that sound right? I'm no expert oviously! but get this impression which seems to make sense i think lol.

Ryan

Hi All-
With Matthew,  I'm also amazed that we are so little involved with the nature of consciousness, since the nature of the "Self", in psychological terms, is the result of self-referential inspection. That is, the sense of being an individual is based on consciousness of ourselves as extended in the reality around us, and is thus a factor derived from consciousness.

The only formal areas that actually look into this fundamental area are metaphysics and genetic psychology. The rest of the world presumes the primacy of matter, rather than the primacy of awareness through which we conclude the nature of matter. Big difference. Maybe not such a good thing.

I get the image of a whole lot of people beating on each other who suddenly become aware that the guy next door is me, and we is God.  Ooops.

I hope the epiphany brings the joy you mention, Alycia, and not  a sense of guilt and depression for our errors. I just had a major case of flu that led me to question my mortality, bringing a little more conservative attitude, and I suspect that the same kind of thing is needed to get others to look into their own inner selves. The Gulf storms and disasters elsewhere, may be the actual means of enlightenment of the masses, rather than allowing us to float away on pink clouds.

I'm up for pink clouds myself.

Kary Mullis? - Nah. I dunno.

As for how to get along, we do what seems appropriate, and we think in terms that ultimately will bring it together with what's real. On a good day, we may even get it right, and everything almost comes out even. But, as Matthew pointed out, there's not much interest in the method, but only in the use of it.

Most of us live in our heads, an airey stance (hence airheads?), and in doing so we forget that our feet are rooted in a common clay. The commonality of our origins carries responsibility to one another, which actually equates with the ability to respond, but it's easier to overlook. Oh well ...
-d

*****************
But I saw something interesting under the surface.  Although he wanted to "trump" me with his intellect, and disprove the notion of consciousness existing outside of the brain, part of him wished it were so.
*****************
The part of him that wanted to "trump you" is most likely his conscious half... his "spirit."
The part of him which was inarticulate, but clearly present, and wanted it
to be so... was probably his UNCONSCIOUS mind, or "soul."
In essence, we are most likely TWO persons, cohabiting in the same body! (Their interplay forms the illusion of the "ego" during life.) One goes on to reincarnate (the conscious spirit, which then becomes somebody else independent from you) and the unconscious soul goes onto a robotic, dream-like existence in heaven or hell (most often hell, unless the person's most vivid memories - which he'd constantly be reliving throughout eternity - were GOOD ones. If they were BAD ones, the memories would strengthen and get worse and worse, and the soul would lack the ability to make choices... mindlessly digging itself deeper and deeper into misery.) The existence of the excarnate soul would be similar to the confused, muddle-headed existence one experiences in dreams, or upon awaking from a deep sleep (when the conscious mind is still disengaged.) This muddle-headed state would exist in HEAVEN as well as hell... so how could one truly enjoy heaven?
I TRULY hope I'm wrong about this theory... it would indicate that we will have no free will in the next life (if the conscious and unconscious divide at death, and go their separate ways... and the part that is YOU is the "soul!")
Alternately, if the part that is "you" is the REINCARNATING SPIRIT, then your memories ("soul contents") are discarded between lives, which would also suck like a hull breach on the USS Enterprise. You'd lose all your hard-won knowledge (and memories of all your friendships and loves!) between lives. Although, I'd greatly prefer this to the FIRST option (that is, the "soul" is you and only lives once.) At least you'd have freedom (of a sort.)
This theory reconciles traditional Eastern and Western ideas about the afterlife, and is extremely ancient and widespread amond disparate peoples (the ancient Egyptian, Hebrew (that's right!) Caananite, Greek, Mayan, Aztec, Inca, Chinese, and Hawaiian cultures, to name just a few from all around the world, believed in it... and most (if not all) of them HATED the implications, devising complex theologies and rituals to try to unite the two halves of the mind... take the national obsession ancient Egypt had with funerary practices! One can only guess if any of them were successful...)
Furthermore, modern scientific studies of the mind appear to vindicate these ancient insights... that we  are, indeed, BINARY beings! (Think about the division of our brains into a "right-brain functions" - i.e., emotions... and  "left-brain functions" - i.e., logic.)
I'd hope that your friend's materialistic interpretation of consciousness is correct, if I were you. (And it may well be so... the fracture of the mind into two halves would result in the death of the ego... and if the EGO is the "fundamental you", then your friend IS for all intents and purposes correct. At least I hope he's right for his sake, and mine, yours and everybody else's!)

Chumley

Chumley,

I truly feel sorry for you.  Many of your assumptions are simply incorrect.  A scientist named Lashley did experiments with mice, where he would train them to run a certain maze.  Then, he would remove sections of their brain, figuring he could localize memories of how to run the maze.  No matter how he burned their little brains (disgusting as that is to animal lovers like myself), the rats maintained their memory.  He came to the conclusion, that consciousness/memory for them was not in any one location in the brain, but everywhere at once.  This right brain/left brain dictum is greatly overstated.  There are neuronal pathways interconnecting our brains in many convoluted ways.  I believe, myself that Lashley is correct, in that the brain is more of a receiver of the spirit than the creator of our thoughts.  But the dualism you see.  Conscious/unconscious, right brain/left brain, is all a construct of our intellect, and is not real.

Freud postulated the id/ego/and superego.  His theories held true for many situations.  Your hypothesis doesn't ring true for him.  These are all intellectual constructs.  They are interesting, but come and go.

The notion that I am divided in two is, to me ridiculous.  Most spiritual teachings and religions consider the true nature of all things to be connected and one.  These divisions are mental constructs, employed by our rational minds. 

For those who have explored into F27, and with astral projection, many have reported visiting memory centers and having past live memories restored.  Completely restored - if this is to be believed.  I'm still on the fence about this.

Descartes wrestled with these issues, but finally said "I think therefore I am."  This is you, your conscious mind with thought and intent.  In meditation, you can merge with a more universal mind and soul, and truly learn new things.

If you take your conscious thoughts to a dark and fearful place, and if thought is all there is when we pass, than for a time, a person is most likely to experience dark and fearful things.  I choose not to  do so.

Best to you,

Matthew

Chumley said
"In the last couple of years, "spiritual" matters have become a compulsion for me (accounting for about 60% of my time on the Web...)"

Are you also researching and trying real life spiritual adventures?  For me the experience goes hand in hand with the reading and investigative aspect of it.  The "aha" may come after some time of sifting through both kinds of learning. 

It's good to see you again--your "penmanship" is a bit  softer to the ear...

love, blink

Well, that's pretty much self-explanatory, isn't it. 

In the Afterlife, there's enough room for everyone to have their own private universe.

That's one way to look at it, Spitfire. 

Another is that, like Christopher Reeves, a person can choose to live out a higher purpose than that of their own pleasure.  I'm sure there were many days he wished he had not survived, but he found the strength to live on for his wife and son, and found worthwhile things to do for his fellow men, all while never giving up hope that he might forge new ground in finding new medical advances for his condition.  The world needs more people like him.  His was a meaningful existence, even after a terrible accident and a fate that many would shun.

love, blink

You sound like a man(? you didn't specify your gender, or if you did, I missed it) after my own heart.
Go to the top of this page (page 2 on this thread) and read what I wrote up there in response to DocM's header post.
There is evidence that the ancients who first conceived of the afterlife, WEREN'T trying to comfort themselves... they were more, well, DESPERATE to try to save themselves from what they thought would naturally happen to their MINDS after their bodies were sloughed off.
Also check out:

http://ww.divisiontheory.com/

And see what you think.
The website proprietor (Novak) maintains a Christian perspective on this ancient theory (which is found in different cultures all over the world) but it is not necessary to be a Christian (I'm not) to see the implications of the theory, and cast some light on the historical (and even pre-historic!) roots of religion (which you are QUITE interested in, unless I miss my guess.)

Chumley

@ Blink: You make a good point, but im sure that superman, if given the choice would not have chosen to live a higher purpose and would have kept his mobility.

Alot of people, are bound my things other then love, such as, honor, dutie to ones family as you said, this to me could be a form of love, for it's a decision you must make each and every day. But on the other hand, he's not given the choice, because of what he believes in, i dont know where he is religous or not, but we all fear what we cant sense, and ending ones life, is not an easy task, unless your mental state is very degraded.

Most people, no matter how badly injured would not choose to end there life, because the body's instincts of self presevation are to strong to overcome.

Even he has some things going for him. He has a family, fame, a purpose.

People who i feel worst for are those who have no supportive family, no fame, and seemingly no purpose in life except to suffer.

Then again if i knew 100% id get somthing out of it at the end of my life, i would put up with it. But since we mortal beings dont get a how existence works manual, it's hard to know whats best for anyone.

@ Chum: Indeed im an 18 your old guy, and you make a good point, i think the "you get to do whatever you like best all the time in the afterlife", is abit of a falicy.

For if the afterlife does exist, then you will no longer have a pshyical body giving you urges, such as eating, sleeping, drinking, running a marathon etc.

Which is why i guess we come down to earth etc to have experience's which we cant in the afterlife (if it exists).

i have read a few books which claim, ancient people lived on earth, long ago, im not very inclined to believe this, because theres no evidence, not 1 artifact etc, you can often find some trace of man, somewhere, unless the full earth has gone and flipped it's entire crust.

The best proof for an afterlife ive seen, are mainly NDe's, (Near death experiences). As they sound logical to me, and also Plausable with modern neuro since explaining that our conscoiusness operates at a quantum level. And they say how it can leave the reciever of the brain when a persons body comes near to death.

Im not to sure about being able to visit the afterlife totally unless you meet this requirement, it seems to me if you think about a subject for hours on end, when you sleep or enter a trance, your dream will evolve around what you have previously been thinking of.

Look into edgar casey's work also, i find it very intresting, especially since he could get very accurate infomation about things without being there.

Id try to look at the link, but it seems it's down or incorrect.

Laters