What Happens When You Die?

[RichardParker]

Mostly the evidence is testimony.

Well, scientificly speaking, testimony is NOT evidence. It's not data. It only becomes evidence once it's independently verifiable.

There are some claims of scientific evidence but the conclusion drawn from that evidence is still a matter of interpretation.

To a certain extend, yes.
But the difference between science and just interpreting things is, that the scientific interpretations become subject to tests. If you can't suggest a way of testing your interpretation, it's not scientificly valide.
So there is more to it than just interpretation and opinion.

The point here is not to convince you of the truth of something. The point is to convince to test these things for yourself. Some people are very stubborn about the "objective reality" of their own perception and cannot be convince to question it.

Well... yes, I'm stuborn about that! Of course!
I insist on trying to have an objective view about reality. "Subjective reality" (I don't even know what that would be) is absolutly useless... and I would also say that it can be dangerous.
If you want to convince me, that I should test these things, I'm all ears. Tell me how I should test what proposition, and what result I should expect or what results you've had. Then I can replicate that test and verify it for myself.

I have a fair degree of certainty in my perception. However it did take a number of years to develop that certainty. No one is going to provide any certainty for something you are not already open to. The evidence you are asking for you are going to have to work for. However if you are already confident in your perception of reality why would you have any willingness to do so?

My perseption at the moment is, that for most of the claims I encounter here haven't been sufficiantly demonstrated. And yes, that's a position I hold with an extrem amount of certainty (because if the evidence had been provided to me, I would already believe in it... obviously).
But as I've said, I'm always open to be convinced... yet it needs more than just hear-say and anectodes.

My "spiritual" experiences are part of my reality. They make me more open to what GnG is talking about. Without them, I suspect it'd be rather obvious that I'd be unconvinced.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems as if you are saying that you have your own reality...
I reject this idea, I have to tell you. I don't see any evidence for the idea that people have different realities, and I don't see any use in that.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, scientificly speaking, testimony is NOT evidence. It's not data. It only becomes evidence once it's independently verifiable.

Obviously we aren't speaking scientifically. However I understand scientific evidence needs verification.

To a certain extend, yes.
But the difference between science and just interpreting things is, that the scientific interpretations become subject to tests. If you can't suggest a way of testing your interpretation, it's not scientificly valide.
So there is more to it than just interpretation and opinion.

Yes, so it'd be kind of pointless to point to such "evidence". That was the only point.

Well... yes, I'm stuborn about that! Of course!
I insist on trying to have an objective view about reality. "Subjective reality" (I don't even know what that would be) is absolutly useless... and I would also say that it can be dangerous.
If you want to convince me, that I should test these things, I'm all ears. Tell me how I should test what proposition, and what result I should expect or what results you've had. Then I can replicate that test and verify it for myself.

Sure nothing wrong with trying to be objective. Which to me means trying to set aside any prejudice to an idea.

However our perception is all we have to go by. To validate the "truth" of something requires that we perceive it and perception is subjective. I have to trust what you claim about what you actually perceive. How do I do that except to trust my own subjective perception.

To test what GnG say, find and follow a Guru or join a Buddhist temple and venerate what is being taught.

My perseption at the moment is, that for most of the claims I encounter here haven't been sufficiantly demonstrated. And yes, that's a position I hold with an extrem amount of certainty (because if the evidence had been provided to me, I would already believe in it... obviously).
But as I've said, I'm always open to be convinced... yet it needs more than just hear-say and anectodes.

Of course, you have to test the truth of such claims for yourself. I'm a slow learner, 26 years and I'm still learning/trying to understand.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems as if you are saying that you have your own reality...
I reject this idea, I have to tell you. I don't see any evidence for the idea that people have different realities, and I don't see any use in that.

You have your own reality, some of it we share through a commonality of experience. Some of it we don't. I'm sure there are a number of things you know to be true through experience that I'm not aware of. I would have to take your word on it where we lacked any common experience.

Who's word are you going to take?

I've read of Buddhist monks who wall themselves off for years so there only contact is a small slit in a door where they are provided food in an attempt to achieve some type of spiritual experience. 40 days in the wilderness or under a bodhi did the trick for a few. People who have tested these thing have left guidance. What they can't provide is a willingness to test the truth of their claims.

 

[RichardParker]

You have your own reality, some of it we share through a commonality of experience. Some of it we don't. I'm sure there are a number of things you know to be true through experience that I'm not aware of. I would have to take your word on it where we lacked any common experience.

And here I disagree.
I certainly have my own experience, we can't share experience (at least not in a complete sense).
BUT these experiences either match reality, or they don't. If they do match reality, then they don't match MY reality, they simply match reality. If they don't match, it's an illusion, a desception.
Sure, the difficulty (and sometimes even the impossiblity) to distinguish which experiences match reality might be a problem, but this doesn't make reality relative or "somebodies own reality".
And I don't think any of us has to take anybodies word for anything.
Sure, if you have an experience that matches what I know about reality (f.e. "I've met a nice, blond girl yesterday") I won't have any reason to doubt you (nice, blond girls do exist, as far as I know). But if you make a claim that seems to contradict what I know (f.e. "Last night, I suddenly woke up when I realized I was floating one meter over my bed") I don't have to take your word for it.
I don't even have to say that you are lying, or that I don't believe you, I just don't have to accept your claim just based on your narration or experience.

Who's word are you going to take?

Depending on the claim.
Mondain claims I'll probably accept from almost anybody, while extreme and outlandish claims I'll probably accept from nobody, without additional evidence.

I've read of Buddhist monks who wall themselves off for years so there only contact is a small slit in a door where they are provided food in an attempt to achieve some type of spiritual experience. 40 days in the wilderness or under a bodhi did the trick for a few. People who have tested these thing have left guidance. What they can't provide is a willingness to test the truth of their claims.

Putting yourself under such extrem conditions will do all kind of things to your brain.
It might bring you enlightenment... or it will make you hallucinate. And both of these things can lead to deep sounding claims. If there is no way of testing the things these people present after their meditation, the two options (hallucinations or true enlightenment) are indistinguishable...
And not just for me, btw. Also for these monks. How could they tell the difference, if their mind is just screwing with them due to extreme conditions, or if they get an actual deep experience.

Don't get me wrong, I don't in any way deny the value of meditation or spiritual experiences. I just say that you have to be very carefull if you try to achieve any kind of knowledge about reality through such things. Because these methods are designed to out-play your brain.

 

[Nakosis]

And here I disagree.
I certainly have my own experience, we can't share experience (at least not in a complete sense).
BUT these experiences either match reality, or they don't. If they do match reality, then they don't match MY reality, they simply match reality. If they don't match, it's an illusion, a desception.
Sure, the difficulty (and sometimes even the impossiblity) to distinguish which experiences match reality might be a problem, but this doesn't make reality relative or "somebodies own reality".
And I don't think any of us has to take anybodies word for anything.
Sure, if you have an experience that matches what I know about reality (f.e. "I've met a nice, blond girl yesterday") I won't have any reason to doubt you (nice, blond girls do exist, as far as I know). But if you make a claim that seems to contradict what I know (f.e. "Last night, I suddenly woke up when I realized I was floating one meter over my bed") I don't have to take your word for it.
I don't even have to say that you are lying, or that I don't believe you, I just don't have to accept your claim just based on your narration or experience.

Yes we have a common reality that we both accept with regard to blonds. If we both found ourselves floating a meter over our beds then you'd be more likely accept my claim. What you accept as reality is relative to what you personally experience.

How do you know of reality except through perception, even if that perception is the result of illusion? What convinces you to trust your perceptions?

Depending on the claim.
Mondain claims I'll probably accept from almost anybody, while extreme and outlandish claims I'll probably accept from nobody, without additional evidence.

Except the problem is were you have no experience with the subject at hand. You've no knowledge, no basis with which to make a determination with. You have to choose or not the claims of someone that is is possible to share in that experience and gain understanding. You, being completely ignorant of the subject have to blindly accept the claims of those who claim to have experience in the subject, at least until you are competent to proceed forth and test the truth of these claims on your own.

Putting yourself under such extrem conditions will do all kind of things to your brain.
It might bring you enlightenment... or it will make you hallucinate. And both of these things can lead to deep sounding claims. If there is no way of testing the things these people present after their meditation, the two options (hallucinations or true enlightenment) are indistinguishable...
And not just for me, btw. Also for these monks. How could they tell the difference, if their mind is just screwing with them due to extreme conditions, or if they get an actual deep experience.

You can test it for yourself. Obviously if you don't trust your ability to distinguish between hallucination and "enlightenment" perhaps it would not benefit you. Can't trust your own perception of reality.

However yes, it is very, very hard. That's why you'll likely need guidance.

Don't get me wrong, I don't in any way deny the value of meditation or spiritual experiences. I just say that you have to be very carefull if you try to achieve any kind of knowledge about reality through such things. Because these methods are designed to out-play your brain.

Yes it is a problem, it is a big problem. However it is a known problem. There are ways to deal with it. From my experience it takes a lot of persistence and discipline.

However there is nothing special about me. I just happen to be dissatisfied with what others were claiming about existence.

I'm still not satisfied. Perhaps you've accepted an explanation that satisfies you.
I've willingly listen to numerous claims of truth. A lot of it is a dead end. People who have fooled themselves into accepting one explanation or another. I've continued to question and seek. Which have resulted in different experiences I've had that are part of my reality. What I accept as reality is based on those experiences.

 

[godnotgod]

When you die you are asleep.You cease to exist and you are no more.You cannot love or hate.You cannot think or feel.All these functions start with the brain.when you die,your brain dies.You cannot function without the brain.

If all that is the case, then there is no localized conscious awareness present to experience it, it being a feature of the brain, as you claim. However, if consciousness is non-local, then it remains after bodily death. It is to this non-local state which Chopra is referring when he says: 'we just return to where we always are'. So how can anyone know that? By experiencing non-local consciousness before one dies. We do now have experimental evidence for the brain's capacity for non-local communication, as well as studies which show that the cerebral cortex of the brain is thicker in long term meditators compared to non-meditators, meaning that consciousness grows the brain, and not vice versa.

Actually, we have evidence of people who were born with little or no brain tissue, and have lived a few to many years, with varying degrees of functionality:

Do You Really Need To Have A Brain?

 

[RichardParker]

Yes we have a common reality that we both accept with regard to blonds. If we both found ourselves floating a meter over our beds then you'd be more likely accept my claim. What you accept as reality is relative to what you personally experience.

How do you know of reality except through perception, even if that perception is the result of illusion? What convinces you to trust your perceptions?

I think I've already adressed that.
Yes, to figure out what experience actually matches reality is not always easy, sometimes it might be impossible. But this doesn't actually change reality. That's why saying that we have different realities is in my opinion false. Reality doesn't change, just because our perseption doesn't give us a reliable picture of that reality.

Except the problem is were you have no experience with the subject at hand. You've no knowledge, no basis with which to make a determination with. You have to choose or not the claims of someone that is is possible to share in that experience and gain understanding. You, being completely ignorant of the subject have to blindly accept the claims of those who claim to have experience in the subject, at least until you are competent to proceed forth and test the truth of these claims on your own.

And here I disagree completly.
No, my ignorance on a subject doesn't in any way make it reasonable for me to just accept somebodies claims, just because they claim that they do have knowledge about that subject. Even if I have no knowledge on the subject at all, I'm still completly justified to reject any claim you (or a respective claimed authority on the subject) are making, if you do so without providing any evidence.

You can test it for yourself. Obviously if you don't trust your ability to distinguish between hallucination and "enlightenment" perhaps it would not benefit you. Can't trust your own perception of reality.

This implies that you f.e. can distinguish between hallucination and enlightenment. And I wonder what mechanism you use for that. After all, if you were just hallucinating, you would obviously hallucinate something that seems real and convincing to you...

However there is nothing special about me. I just happen to be dissatisfied with what others were claiming about existence.

What do you mean "dissatisfied" with what others are claiming about existence?
I'm also not always satisfied with reality, but reality doesn't owe me satisfaction. Reality is reality, and I better learn to deal with it, instead of trying to convince myself into believing in a "reality" that might not be real, but just satisfies me...
Or do I misunderstand you?

 

[godnotgod]

...
All my understanding is intellectual. I don't think any other way of understanding is even possible.

Well of course not! The intellect has everything all sewed up, lock, stock, and barrel, convincing you that it is the only show in town, when, in fact, it is a tightly controlled and sculpted compartmentalized view of Reality, and which only provides a small percentage of your total power to know. Once the intellect is put into the correct context of Reality itself, we then understand factual knowledge in terms of that Reality, and not the other way round.

No, I don't see the universe as seperate. But I see things INSIDE the universe as "seperate" (and AGAIN: Not seperate in "completly unconected", but different parts, that are connected... as you yourself admited when you said that we are interconnected, because if we weren't individual parts, we wouldn't need any connections).

'Inside' and 'outside' are only concepts. There are no such places.

Seperate ideantities from things inside the universe, sure.
And again, this is demonstrable. I am not my computer, even though I am connected to my computer.

Your computer is an extension of who and what you are.

Actually, no.
It's demonstrable.
If you think that you have evidence to show that identity is an illusion, please provide that evidence.

Who were you before you were 'Richard Parker' the biologist, who was born in such and such town, went to such and such school, worked at such and such place, etc, etc.? In fact, what did your face look like before your mother was born?

Wait... and you don't?
You do NOT see yourself as having a seperate identity from everything else in the universe? Then why are you talking to me? There is no necessity! I don't exist, I'm the same consciousness as you. Everything you know, I already know too. That's the conclusion from what you are saying. The fact taht you are still trying to explain anything to me (or anybody else) shows that you understand that we are NOT the same things. That we in fact do have different identities and consciousness.

We may not possess the same factual knowledge as each other, but the nature of our consciousness is identical. It is when we attach to our unique storehouse of factual knowledge that the false notion of an agent of factual knowledge we then call "I" comes into play. It is this identity we call "I" that is fiction.

It's the bizarrest thing that you keep coming back to the ocean and wave things... because then you agree with me!
A wave is NOT the ocean! And it's not all other waves either! It's a part of the ocean, and connected to everything of the ocean, but it is neither the ocean itself nor everything else in the ocean. In the same thing that I might be part of the universe and connected to everything else in the universe, but I'm neither the universe itself, nor am I everything else in the universe.

Allow me to replace the word 'interconnected' with 'contiguous'. Understand that what you call 'parts', I am calling 'form'. All forms are contiguous one with the rest. All waves are contiguous with the ocean; our forms are contiguous with the universe. We are, in fact, the universe, and not just things inside the universe, which implies separation.

There are many contiguous states, but only one land mass.

In the same way that music can.
Music isn't just the instrument that plays it. It isn't just one tune that moves through the medium of the air, and interacts with an ear. It's the combination of all these things.
To say, that the idea that consciousness is an emergent things is just a weak hypothesis goes against pretty much everything we know about consciousness. You might disagree with our current understanding of consciousness, but given that so far you have only asserted the key things of your hypothesis (of an underlying consciousness), and also given that your entire argument seems to be extremly incoherent (you are saying that we are not parts of the universe, but then you say that we are all connected which necessitates us being individual parts) concept, I don't think that you have a strong case against the idea of an emergent consciousness.

As I said, the so called 'emergent theory' is not a scientific theory at all; it is, at best, only a hypothesis at this point. Just because brain probes elicit automatic responses does not equate to evidence of a mind or that consciousness is created by the brain. It only means that certain memories of past experiences are stored in the brain, and manifest when stimulated.

I don't think that it makes sense, and I don't see any evidence for it.

Of course not. Your'e still clinging to your conceptual framework.

It is commonly believed by BB theorists that Time and Space were created at the moment of inception, but if that is the case, then at least Time and Space were non existent prior to the BB. I include Causation for reasons I will not go into right now. But like the conditions pre-existing the BB, consciousness also does not exist in Space or Time. Consciousness is non-local. It cannot be assigned to any place or history. It simply is.

If and when you ever go into a meditative state, you will reach a point in which there is no point in time or space that your conscious awareness can be localized within, even though you know your body sits in a room at such and such address at such and such time.

 

[Thief]

When you die you are asleep.You cease to exist and you are no more.You cannot love or hate.You cannot think or feel.All these functions start with the brain.when you die,your brain dies.You cannot function without the brain.

You cannot continue in this life....when your chemistry fails.....true.
Doesn't mean 'you' die.

'You' might want to die spiritually....and it might actually happen.

 

[outhouse]

Souls do not factually exist at this time.

Yet when your brain dies, factually conscious dies with it.


Conscious thought is now seen inside the brain and we can actually see the answer to questions in the brain itself before the test subject even knows the answer.

Souls are a concept born in mythology, and have not left it as of yet

 

[godnotgod]

Yet when your brain dies, factually conscious dies with it.


Conscious thought is now seen inside the brain and we can actually see the answer to questions in the brain itself before the test subject even knows the answer.

Still, this does not mean that the brain creates consciousness. The brain can simply be a local receiver/storage for non-local consciousness.

 

[Sapiens]

Still, this does not mean that the brain creates consciousness. The brain can simply be a local receiver/storage for non-local consciousness.

Possible, but there is no evidence to support the concept, so it's just another argument from ignorance.

 

[godnotgod]

Possible, but there is no evidence to support the concept, so it's just another argument from ignorance.

Here. Spend a little time with this:[FONT=&quot]

Prof. J. Grinberg-Zylberbaum (1994) : The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox in the Brain

...and a .pdf of the original paper you can download:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Grinberg1994.pdf

(not hyperlinked; just copy and paste. tested; works OK)

Also, this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oJ9I9Oh9Tc
[/FONT]

 

[RichardParker]

Well of course not! The intellect has everything all sewed up, lock, stock, and barrel, convincing you that it is the only show in town, when, in fact, it is a tightly controlled and sculpted compartmentalized view of Reality, and which only provides a small percentage of your total power to know. Once the intellect is put into the correct context of Reality itself, we then understand factual knowledge in terms of that Reality, and not the other way round.

Riiiiiiight...
I'm not even sure this actually means anything, but I'm willing to listen if you want to clarify.
See people believe (and even claim to know) all kinds of things for all kinds of reason aside from actually intellectual ones. I don't doubt that.
What I do doubt is the accuracy of their believes held on that basis. And given the extrelmly poor track-record of these kinds of believes in terms of actually leading to any practical results, I think the intellectual rout is still the best one, and the most reliable one.

'Inside' and 'outside' are only concepts. There are no such places.

Weeeell...
I sort of agree. I don't think there is an "outside" to the universe, so an "inside" isn't really very sensible either (in terms of actual locations). What I've refered to, and I think I've made it clear in the context of my entire comment, was the idea of being part of the universe or being seperate from the universe.

Your computer is an extension of who and what you are.

No, it isn't.

Who were you before you were 'Richard Parker' the biologist, who was born in such and such town, went to such and such school, worked at such and such place, etc, etc.? In fact, what did your face look like before your mother was born?

Nonsensical question, since I didn't exist then.

We may not possess the same factual knowledge as each other, but the nature of our consciousness is identical. It is when we attach to our unique storehouse of factual knowledge that the false notion of an agent of factual knowledge we then call "I" comes into play. It is this identity we call "I" that is fiction.

So, WE have different experience (which entirely depends on the "we" containing more than one identity), WE have different knowledge...
And yet it's an illusion that there are different entities contained in this WE?
This is internally contradictory.

Allow me to replace the word 'interconnected' with 'contiguous'. Understand that what you call 'parts', I am calling 'form'. All forms are contiguous one with the rest. All waves are contiguous with the ocean; our forms are contiguous with the universe. We are, in fact, the universe, and not just things inside the universe, which implies separation.

Ok, so here we ran into a language problem because I didn't know what "contiguous" ment.
I looked it up and found this definition: "sharing a common border; touching"
This really doesn't change the meaning of what you've said. It still implies that there are different THING, that touch and are connected.
And as I've said: Yes, I agree, we are NOT seperate from the universe... but there are different entities and things inside the universe. The universe describes the ENTIRETY of these things.
In the same way, that there are many, many different (yet connected) waves in the ocean, which in their entirety are the ocean...and yet they are different things.

Maybe there is a defintion to the word "contiguous" that I didn't find, so feel free to correct me on that.

As I said, the so called 'emergent theory' is not a scientific theory at all; it is, at best, only a hypothesis at this point.

It doesn't matter that much if you want to call it a theory or hypothesis. Fact is, that it is supported by all the evidence we have about consciousness, and contradicted by none. It's also the only game in town so far that explains all the facts and doesn't relly on aditional hypothetical, so far unsuported things, like an underlying consciousness of the universe. So, even if you call it a hypothesis, it's so far the by far best model we have about it.

Just because brain probes elicit automatic responses does not equate to evidence of a mind or that consciousness is created by the brain.

No, but facts like that the states of consciousness can actually be altered when the brain gets damage DOES equate to evidence to that.

Of course not. Your'e still clinging to your conceptual framework.

I'm not "clinging" to it, it's just so far the only thing we have evidence for, in contrary to the idea you propose here, which (as far as I can tell) isn't even internally consistend, given that you come back to the idea that there are no individual parts to the universe, and then describe it in terms of things that ARE parts of something bigger (like the waves and ocean).

(cont.)

 

[RichardParker]

...

It is commonly believed by BB theorists that Time and Space were created at the moment of inception, but if that is the case, then at least Time and Space were non existent prior to the BB. I include Causation for reasons I will not go into right now. But like the conditions pre-existing the BB...

Wait... you've now stated that time and even causality started with the big bang (according to that model at least... with which I agree, btw) and then you say something about a "PRE-big bang"-state? PRE- implies a temporal state, which makes no sense, given that time started at the point of the big bang!

Consciousness is non-local. It cannot be assigned to any place or history. It simply is.

And THAT'S the assertion I've been waiting for justification since the beginning of this conversation!
Ok. Fine. You believe that consciousness transence space, time and locality. Fine!
Make your case for that! Present evidence for it, don't just assert it, please.

If and when you ever go into a meditative state, you will reach a point in which there is no point in time or space that your conscious awareness can be localized within, even though you know your body sits in a room at such and such address at such and such time.

I understand that you've experienced something during your meditations that you interpret as this. How did you test that this was reality, that your interpretation of whatever you've experienced matches reality, and that it wasn't just some other experience based on an altered brain-state due to "extreme" situation, which long and intense meditation certainly is.

 

[Etritonakin]

I don't know what he meant -but I disagree with the idea that he does not exist/we do not exist.

Individual identity is important, as it allows activity directed by an individual.

It is that which -coupled with creativity -allows an individual to create something uniquely wonderful -which, in turn, brings joy to another individual -so on, and so forth.

We exist -as individuals -and can create things individually unique.

The fact that he has a name is indicative of such.
Though we are all part of everything which exists, we are separated by certain beneficial borders.

The fact that we don't always know what another is thinking is perhaps the most wonderful thing of all (though getting all up in another person's brain can be the worst thing of all -because we can know generally how people think -as we are like them -but assume and superimpose in harmful ways).

Individual existence, identity and creativity are the source of exponential joy and wonder at newly-created things- if used correctly, and sorrow -if used incorrectly.


When we die, we cease.

The systems and compounds break down as they will -this matter and energy goes this way and that way.

***************
(feel free to disagree)

However, the individual (which has developed over the course of an individual human life)
is stored/recorded, as it were... and still exists in an inactive state....

....and can be placed within a body which has increased ability to express individual creativity -to bring joy, awe and wonder to other individuals.

The basic principle should be apparent from human experience.
When a new, individual life is created (which, at this point, requires you to do little except enjoy each other), extreme joy is caused by that individual acting in unexpected and unique ways,-as well as wonderfully beautiful ways which are common to all -and, eventually, by their individual creativity affecting the world in completely new ways.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't know what he meant -but I disagree with the idea that he does not exist/we do not exist.

Individual identity is important, as it allows activity directed by an individual.

It is that which -coupled with creativity -allows an individual to create something uniquely wonderful -which, in turn, brings joy to another individual -so on, and so forth.

We exist -as individuals -and can create things individually unique.

The fact that he has a name is indicative of such.
Though we are all part of everything which exists, we are separated by certain beneficial borders.

The fact that we don't always know what another is thinking is perhaps the most wonderful thing of all (though getting all up in another person's brain can be the worst thing of all -because we can know generally how people think -as we are like them -but assume and superimpose in harmful ways).

Individual existence, identity and creativity are the source of exponential joy and wonder at newly-created things- if used correctly, and sorrow -if used incorrectly.


When we die, we cease.

The systems and compounds break down as they will -this matter and energy goes this way and that way.

***************
(feel free to disagree)

However, the individual (which has developed over the course of an individual human life)
is stored/recorded, as it were... and still exists in an inactive state....

....and can be placed within a body which has increased ability to express individual creativity -to bring joy, awe and wonder to other individuals.

The basic principle should be apparent from human experience.
When a new, individual life is created (which, at this point, requires you to do little except enjoy each other), extreme joy is caused by that individual acting in unexpected and unique ways,-as well as wonderfully beautiful ways which are common to all -and, eventually, by their individual creativity affecting the world in completely new ways.

You don't need an identity in order to be creative. The best creativity is when the artist gets himself out of the way, loses himself in the essence of his work, and even gets carried away to another world . When we see creative works, we don't want to see the creator; we want to see the content, which points the viewer to something bigger than mere identity. That is the mark (or rather, not-mark) of great works of art, like the Mona Lisa, for example. Da Vinci is not telltale in the work, advertising himself in any way to cheapen his art.

Who you really are is not your identity, which is only a collection of lifetime impressions, titles, and experiences. Who you are is the consciousness immediately engaged in those experiences.

 

[godnotgod]

Riiiiiiight...
I'm not even sure this actually means anything, but I'm willing to listen if you want to clarify.
See people believe (and even claim to know) all kinds of things for all kinds of reason aside from actually intellectual ones. I don't doubt that.
What I do doubt is the accuracy of their believes held on that basis. And given the extrelmly poor track-record of these kinds of believes in terms of actually leading to any practical results, I think the intellectual rout is still the best one, and the most reliable one.

Of course, your intellect is deciding that to be the case as it is Judge, Jury, and Hangman.

We see the intellectual types; the Phd's, come into the Zen Centers eager to 'figure it all out' and get enlightened. They are the ones who end up a sobbing heap on their meditation mats, finally humbled by the experience.

The intellect alone is a brittle, legalistic black and white affair. It is a proud know it all that needs to be put in its place, as far as I am concerned. Not saying it has no use; but intellectual knowledge must follow the spiritual experience. Once the intellect is connected to the spiritual nature of man, it comes alive, but until then, it is a bore. It is the dead man talking, who gives us all the facts but tells us nothing.

'Daddy, why is the sky blue?'
'Because of the oxygen, son'
'Oh'

And here is the beginning of the stultification of man's true nature, with a nation of know it all robots running around socking factual knowledge to everyone in the guise of Truth, making the West a joke in the eyes of the world.

 

[godnotgod]

...

Wait... you've now stated that time and even causality started with the big bang (according to that model at least... with which I agree, btw) and then you say something about a "PRE-big bang"-state? PRE- implies a temporal state, which makes no sense, given that time started at the point of the big bang!

.

That's right, and it is at that very point that Time and Space were still non-existent. IOW, the BB was an event in consciousness. In fact, it is still an ongoing event in consciousness, but with the conceptual overlays of Time, Space, and Causation to make us think it occurred somewhere in the distant past. It didn't. It is occurring in this timeless Present Moment....or is it? Some see it as a Grand Illusion.

 

[godnotgod]

...

And THAT'S the assertion I've been waiting for justification since the beginning of this conversation!
Ok. Fine. You believe that consciousness transence space, time and locality. Fine!
Make your case for that! Present evidence for it, don't just assert it, please.

You mean you still don't get that the spiritual experience; the transformation of consciousness, cannot be demonstrated to be genuine via factual evidence? You should have gotten the idea by now that it is beyond the thinking mind; beyond Reason, Logic, and Analysis. Which is the very reason I asked you what I did at the outset of our discussion. Nakosis tried to tell you that you need to go see for yourself. No one can describe the taste of strawberries to one who has never tasted them. It's not a belief, as you think, but an experience. And no, it is not a hallucination. We know the difference.

I understand that you've experienced something during your meditations that you interpret as this. How did you test that this was reality, that your interpretation of whatever you've experienced matches reality, and that it wasn't just some other experience based on an altered brain-state due to "extreme" situation, which long and intense meditation certainly is.

A small example:

Every year during winter, the Zen temples close their doors to the public to go into intensive group meditation practice called sesshin. The idea is that total group energy gets everyone over the threshold of the spiritual experience. If there is ever an extreme situation, sesshin is it, as meditation is practiced for hours and hours on end. Because the energy levels are so intense, it stirs up old images long forgotten in the subconscious. Students may excitedly report to their teachers that:

"Roshi, I saw Jesus! He was standing right there in front of me!"

Other variations can be the Buddha, or the Blessed Mother. Roshi calmly tells the student:

'Yes, of course. Now I want you to return to your meditation mat and focus on your breath.'

"But Roshi! You don't understand! I saw JESUS!"

'I understand. Now please return to your mat and continue counting your breaths'

The Roshi knows these images to be hallucinations called makyo, which are well documented in the Zen community, he having been there, done that. Another reason why it is important to have a teacher to help you out of the pitfalls. Later, when the student finally gets past this phase, he also understands the delusional nature of .
makyo.

 

[godnotgod]

It doesn't matter that much if you want to call it a theory or hypothesis. Fact is, that it is supported by all the evidence we have about consciousness, and contradicted by none. It's also the only game in town so far that explains all the facts and doesn't relly on aditional hypothetical, so far unsuported things, like an underlying consciousness of the universe. So, even if you call it a hypothesis, it's so far the by far best model we have about it.

I choose Reality over models of Reality.

But from those who work with models, and in response to your statement about the evidence for emergentism, I quote, in part, Donald Huffman, Phd. on the subject:

"Despite substantial efforts by many researchers, we still have no scientific theory of how brain activity can create, or be, conscious experience. This is troubling, since we have a large body of correlations between brain activity and consciousness, correlations normally assumed to entail that brain activity creates conscious experience. Here I explore a solution to the mind-body problem that starts with the converse assumption: these correlations arise because consciousness creates brain activity, and indeed creates all objects and properties of the physical world.

... perceptual strategies that see the truth compete with perceptual strategies that do not see the truth but are instead tuned to fitness. The result is that natural selection drives true perceptions to swift extinction. Our perceptions have evolved to guide adaptive behaviors, not to report the truth.

In support of conscious realism, I present a dynamical theory of consciousness ... This is a step toward solving the mind-body problem from the assumption that consciousness, not physics, is fundamental."

DONALD HOFFMAN, PHD
Donald Hoffman is a cognitive scientist and author of more than 90 scientific papers and three books...

Consciousness and The Interface Theory of Perception,
Donald Hoffman

More commentary here, and his video lecture:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqDP34a-epI