What is death? If there is an afterlife?

[Willamena]

Well, in all fairness, that kind of physics isn't really taught in elementary school (at least I don't remember it being taught.) It was, however, taught in middle school... kind of.

Not to mention, the teachers didn't quite understand how to translate the language of science to something that kids can understand, so the only sciences we really took from that was based on things we could actually do. (For me, the best part was creating the water/corn-starch mix. ^_^ But guess what? It wasn't until the stuff was featured in Mythbusters that I learned that it's called a "non-Newtonian fluid."

So, in other words, I don't think most kids really understood most of what was taught to us. My knowledge of science at the time primarily came from the Magic School Bus, Bill Nye, and 3D Dinosaur Adventure, and even then it didn't really mean anything; it was just a bunch of factoids.

Mine from Julius Sumner Miller.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"You"is the combination of your soul and your body. Neither one, on its own, is "you".

So then "you" don't survive death even if your soul lives on.

Edit: this is pretty much the conclusion I've come to: that if an afterlife of some sort exists, the thing that's "living after" can't be rightly called the person.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's unchanging. Personality is very subject to change; I used to be an arrogant bully, for example, caught up in his own little world, almost completely oblivious to the outside world. (This was primarily in Middle School.) Now, just barely a decade later, only a small vestige of that personality remains. (I still haven't quite figured out how to be fully "present.") The soul is, essentially, not subject to change.

Sure, from what I've heard (I'm too young to really know if this is true), once you become an adult, it's really hard to change personality. But, at the same time, I've heard of it happening, so the point still stands: personality is not what our true identities are.

I think the language you use illustrates my point: "I was a bully", not "my personality was a bully". We identify self with the personality, not with some unchanging thing inside us.

If the "real me" is unchanging, then the real me can never learn, grow, think, or feel. I don't see how it's useful or valid to look at such a thing as "me".

 

[hadzo]

So far nobody really pays 2cents to what I say L but anyway I’ll give it a try…



I asked my self the very same question many times but stopped trying soon after I realized that it wouldn’t matter that much anyways, I mean how could it matter when after you die your memory is gone (at least all recent discoveries point towards that). Some will argue that your memory may continue, or that it is just stored in some kind of a universal memory lot. No-one single “HUMAN” has “EVER” contacted another living human after death (at least not those that don’t suffer from some form of delusion or disease). I don’t want to talk about “Near Death Experiences” instead lets define communication from “other side” that of someone who has been deceased at least for one month or so. In that case I know of none such incidents. I understand that there are many people who claim that they talk with the “dead” all the time. It is my honest opinion that they are full of it.

So I will try and answer your question.

Death is a process. It is a process that our body undergoes when it has reached its full potential and can no longer sustain it self in the form that we are all familiar with. During that process many things happened. It used to be believed that death is instantaneous, but it is not. Even after our conscious has gone there still remain parts of our body that continue with their normal functions, for a little while that is.

Afterlife is one of the most talked about subjects. I believe that man created the idea of afterlife. It is very frightening to keep with “after you die, that’s it” idea. As I mentioned above we have no solid proof or, in reality, a good reason to believe that there is after life (If you are a very religious person than you do have both but your source is the Holly book you believe in). However, if there is some place (after life) where some portion of what we know as “our self” in conscious world does end up than that’s on a level that we cannot comprehend right now - that is our brains cannot process that kind of information.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I see, you're one of those people who don't bother stopping at traffic lights.

Traffic lights have a practical application as a symbol.
Where is the practical application for the new-age concept of 'energy' as a symbol?

 

[jarofthoughts]

In vitalism, "energy" or "flame" or the "vital spark", or even "soul", can be a symbolic image. I imagine, as in Astrology, the degree to which it's all taken literally is the degree to which it appears to work.

Could you expand a bit on what you mean here?
Not sure I caught that.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think the language you use illustrates my point: "I was a bully", not "my personality was a bully". We identify self with the personality, not with some unchanging thing inside us.

Correct, which the Sages teach is actually an error. I, or more properly, this intellect (^_^) hasn't yet learned how to properly disassociate self-identity with things that I have rather than with what I actually am.

This one is still a novice, after all. ^_^

If the "real me" is unchanging, then the real me can never learn, grow, think, or feel. I don't see how it's useful or valid to look at such a thing as "me".

The Self in us is unchanging, but even beyond death, there are impressions placed upon it that came from life, according to the Sages, which keep it from realizing what it really is. The ultimate goal is to remove all of these impressions, so that the Self can finally realize that it was never not Satchidananda (Existence-Consciousness-Bliss), which is Brahman.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Nor is there any reason to think there's not.
There you go!

Apply that train of thought to pink invisible unicorns and you'll understand what I mean.

 

[jarofthoughts]

What about the clergy who are not those things?

The main function of clergy is to tell people nonsense about what happens when we die.
Without that they would be out of a job and would have to become productive members of society.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Actually, there are plenty of reasons to think those things exist - just not good or rational reasons.

Ah, sorry.

I don't play the semantics game when it comes to defining reality.
For that context I only apply rationality and logic.

See my title for further clarification.

 

[Riverwolf]

The main function of clergy is to tell people nonsense about what happens when we die.

Which clergy do that specifically?

The clergy that I've seen primarily teaches how to live life.

 

[lunamoth]

Which clergy do that specifically?

The clergy that I've seen primarily teaches how to live life.

Ditto.

 

[jarofthoughts]

That's a matter of opinion.

That's a matter of evidence.
Opinion means something else.

 

[Willamena]

Traffic lights have a practical application as a symbol.
Where is the practical application for the new-age concept of 'energy' as a symbol?

Well, vitalism is hardly a new-age concept. It was used by a Greek fellow named Hippocrates to formalize a traditional folk practice known as "medicine" (*makes quote marks in the air with her fingers*) as a serious area of study. It could also be well argued that it is foundational psychology (as opposed to the foundation of psychology).

 

[jarofthoughts]

Awww...
don't be so self-depricating, now! We like your opinions just fine! Don't we, Gang!

As long as they are presented as opinions and not facts, I have no problem with them.

Saying: "I believe/think there is such a thing as a soul but I have no evidential or logical reason to think so" is fine. (The admission at the end is rather crucial).
Saying: "There is such a thing as a soul" or "I know there is such a thing as a soul" is not.

 

[Willamena]

Could you expand a bit on what you mean here?
Nu sure I caught that.

Your question is a good example: there's this "me" who is expected to "do" things, to initiate actions and events in the world. An agent. Energy is the ability of a system to do work on other physical systems.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Well, in all fairness, that kind of physics isn't really taught in elementary school (at least I don't remember it being taught.) It was, however, taught in middle school... kind of.

In Norway we teach the pupils the scientific understanding of energy in fourth grade and it is of course supplemented and expanded upon further in later grades. But yeah, elementary school.

Not to mention, the teachers didn't quite understand how to translate the language of science to something that kids can understand, so the only sciences we really took from that was based on things we could actually do. (For me, the best part was creating the water/corn-starch mix. ^_^ But guess what? It wasn't until the stuff was featured in Mythbusters that I learned that it's called a "non-Newtonian fluid."

Sounds like you had sucky teachers then (I'm a science teacher myself), and we actually made non-Newtonian fluids today in class!
And yes, I did explain what they are.

So, in other words, I don't think most kids really understood most of what was taught to us. My knowledge of science at the time primarily came from the Magic School Bus, Bill Nye, and 3D Dinosaur Adventure, and even then it didn't really mean anything; it was just a bunch of factoids.

Again, sounds like you had sucky teachers.

 

[TheKnight]

So then "you" don't survive death even if your soul lives on.

Edit: this is pretty much the conclusion I've come to: that if an afterlife of some sort exists, the thing that's "living after" can't be rightly called the person.

Perhaps. I don't really believe in much of an "afterlife".

 

[jarofthoughts]

Which clergy do that specifically?

The clergy that I've seen primarily teaches how to live life.

And what are those teachings based on?

 

[Riverwolf]

In Norway we teach the pupils the scientific understanding of energy in fourth grade and it is of course supplemented and expanded upon further in later grades. But yeah, elementary school.

Lucky you guys.

It might be mentioned in our schools, but I don't think it was done so very well.

Sounds like you had sucky teachers then (I'm a science teacher myself), and we actually made non-Newtonian fluids today in class!
And yes, I did explain what they are.

I think all that was explained to us about them is that we were asked if they were solids or liquids, and they finally basically said "both." If they used the term "non-newtonian", I don't remember it.

Again, sounds like you had sucky teachers.

Well, I do live in America. ^_^

Though I do have a quick question about that: I learned a while ago (on these forums, in fact) that matter and energy are essentially the same thing in different forms. (Matter is essentially condensed energy, as it were.) If energy is a process but not a substance, how can this be? Was my informant (an atheist, if I remember correctly, just FYI) mistaken?