We Never Really Die: The Science behind Eternal Consciousness

[Infolad1]

It does not matter what others say no matter how celebrated, it only matters what you can unequivocally prove. Find a way.

 

I don't know why I'm here, do you? Why is anyone anywhere ? Why are you here ?

 

Eastern, Western, it doesn't matter, you need to understand the words in context. You might be able to read, it does not mean you can read. Once you can know the unequivocal reality of a thing, you can know the reality of self. First search for the truth within yourself and then know all others by that. It's very difficult to do that in reverse if you cannot yet know what is objective and what is subjective.

 

I shall break a rule I have, because I do not like to prove things by pointing to what was said, but in this case you misinterpreted einsteins words:

 

In an essay entitled The World As I See It, first published 1933, Einstein explained his reverence for God as Eternal Universal Intelligence. But he rejected prevalent religious ideas of individual survival of physical death, reincarnation, or of reward or punishment in heaven or hell after physical death. He said:

 

I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature. [The World As I See It]

 

On learning of the death of a lifelong friend, Einstein wrote in a March 1955 letter to his friend’s family:

 

“Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

 

Thanks again for proving my point.

 

You literally just told me that I can't read. And that I don't understand.

 

Your hubris is funny.

 

And you don't cultivate. 

 

"God" (Allah, Original Nature, The Big Giant Head) doesn't reward or protect. Those are under our control.

Our ability to choose is the essence of our likeness with It.

 

Einstein said that he can't comprehend reincarnation, then he gave his opinion on it.

Has nothing to do with, and doesn't negate the quote I used. 

 

Find someone else to waste time with, In your Hegelian sandbox Karl.

 

As I said before readers, I've written down my position. You've read Karl's.

 

Come to your own conclusions.

 

I'm done.

 

Cheers!

[Karl]

Thanks again for proving my point.

 

You literally just told me that I can't read. And that I don't understand.

 

Your hubris is funny.

 

And you don't cultivate. 

 

"God" (Allah, Original Nature, The Big Giant Head) doesn't reward or protect. Those are under our control.

Our ability to choose is the essence of our likeness with It.

 

Einstein said that he can't comprehend reincarnation, then he gave his opinion on it.

Has nothing to do with, and doesn't negate the quote I used. 

 

Find someone else to waste time with, In your Hegelian sandbox Karl.

 

As I said before readers, I've written down my position. You've read Karl's.

 

Come to your own conclusions.

 

I'm done.

 

Cheers!

Thanks again for proving my point.

 

You literally just told me that I can't read. And that I don't understand.

 

Your hubris is funny.

 

And you don't cultivate. 

 

"God" (Allah, Original Nature, The Big Giant Head) doesn't reward or protect. Those are under our control.

Our ability to choose is the essence of our likeness with It.

 

Einstein said that he can't comprehend reincarnation, then he gave his opinion on it.

Has nothing to do with, and doesn't negate the quote I used. 

 

Find someone else to waste time with, In your Hegelian sandbox Karl.

 

As I said before readers, I've written down my position. You've read Karl's.

 

Come to your own conclusions.

 

I'm done.

 

Cheers!

 

Why appeal to others to be judges ? You are confident in your subjective view of the world, then what point inviting 'imaginary' others to support your argument ?

 

My hubris is reality for you ? Then that's how it is for me, but not to you. Everything is subjective to you is it not ? I can be certain this is your judgement, but can you ?

 

It's not my intention to win, only to discover what is true for both of us. If none is, then I am talking to a shadow. I am certain this is not the case, but you must prove that reality for yourself.

 

If you cannot know what is objective and what subjective then how can you read anything with certainty ? Thus my question, but not assertion. It is you that have concluded these things I only wish to prove that you are an objective person and existent in reality. It is you that wishes to devalue that.

 

 

 

 

[Infolad1]

As far as I can tell, neuroscience doesn't say much about consciousness as such aside from the notion that there is one place in the brain which can cause a person to become unconscious. Everything else in neurology, though, seems to have more to do with packaging ideas that are accessed by consciousness---not consciousness itself.

 

Nice observation.

 

They're playing with a radio, thinking the music, and shows are in the radio.

 

They haven't figured out yet that the radio is just a receiver.

 

Consciousness is immaterial. It has to be. Only way to allow for infinite probabilities. 

 

Also, people tend to confuse the personality with consciousness. 

 

The personality is a mental construct. An amalgamation of thoughts, opinions,

& conditioned responses to external stimuli.

 

Consciousness is that which is looking at the thoughts, looking at the Images, looking at 

body perceive sensations, desires, urges, but is none of It.

 

They'll make breakthroughs once they can go beyond gross physical matter.

 

Penrose and Hameroff's Orch Or theory is close. Dovetails with a lot of what Lanza is saying:

 

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/content/overview-sh

 

Stuart Hameroff on Singularity 1on1: Consciousness is More than Computation!

 

Enjoy!

 

Cheers!

[Karl]

Nice observation.

 

They're playing with a radio, thinking the music, and shows are in the radio. ( I don't think they are )

 

They haven't figured out yet that the radio is just a receiver. ( they have, but you think it's the transmitter )

 

Consciousness is immaterial. It has to be. Only way to allow for infinite probabilities. ( of matter, not matter )

 

Also, people tend to confuse the personality with consciousness. (Yes)

 

The personality is a mental construct. An amalgamation of thoughts, opinions, ( yes )

& conditioned responses to external stimuli.

 

Consciousness is that which is looking at the thoughts, looking at the Images, looking at (yes)

body perceive sensations, desires, urges, but is none of It.

 

They'll make breakthroughs once they can go beyond gross physical matter.(no, there is no 'beyond physical matter in that sense, you are already beyond that in another ).