New Scientific Theory Suggests Consciousness Does Not End at Death.

Devils' Advocate

Devils' Advocate

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,086
Reaction score
393
Points
83
Location
In this so called Reality. Well, most of the time.
From the article:

If the body generates consciousness, then consciousness dies when the body dies. But if the body receives consciousness in the same way that a cable box receives satellite signals, then of course consciousness does not end at the death of the physical vehicle. In fact, consciousness exists outside of constraints of time and space. It is able to be anywhere: in the human body and outside of it. In other words, it is non-local in the same sense that quantum objects are non-local.

http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphys...ciousness-moves-to-another-universe-at-death/

I'm intrigued by the concept!
 
I'm a little disappointed. The article references H.G. Wells. There's another article on the same mag titled 256 year old man reveals the secrets to his longevity!
 
Thanks for the very interesting link DA. Strange how timing works sometimes. I have never heard of Lanza until two days ago. My oldest son gave me Robert Lanza's 2009 book "Biocentrism...". I have not started it but from the preface it does seem fascinating.
 
Shows how 'new' science is far behind the times. Mystics have taught consciousness is not sourced in the body for aeons.
 
Nicholas Weeks said:
Shows how 'new' science is far behind the times. Mystics have taught consciousness is not sourced in the body for aeons.
Click to expand...
Yes, Science is certainly backward. It has completely overlooked ectoplasm, for example, and water witching. Just off the top of my that those are two terrific example of areas in which mystics are still far ahead of the competition.
 
waggindraggin said:
Yes, Science is certainly backward. It has completely overlooked ectoplasm, for example, and water witching. Just off the top of my that those are two terrific example of areas in which mystics are still far ahead of the competition.
Click to expand...

Try a dictionary sometime; mystics have nothing to do with your examples.

a person who claims to attain, or believes in the possibility ofattaining, insight into mysteries transcending ordinary human knowledge, as by direct communication with the divine or immediate intuition in a state of spiritual ecstasy.
or
a person initiated into religious mysteries.
 
from the article: The triggering factor for these multiplyingworlds is our actions, explained Everett. If we make some choices, instantly one universe splits into two with different versions of outcomes.

I admit that I have doubts about the multiverse theory. For a bunch of reasons. The main one though is that this theory puts people back at the center of the universe.

Back in the Middle Ages everyone believed that the earth was the center of everything because humans were the most important thing that existed. Science later taught us that we are an insignificant little dustball in the backwaters of this galaxy, of which there are trillions of other worlds, and trillions of other galaxies beyond ours.

The multiverse theory puts us right back in the center seat again. Because every decision we humans make causes new multiverse divisions. Talk about hubris. What about dogs? When they choose to chase a squirrel or not, does that also cause one universe to split into two as well?

What about cockroaches?

What about the most simple life forms? Does every 'decision' by every thing considered alive cause this split to occur? The number of universes created would have to be close to infinite.

Or is it just humans who create these new universes because we are so speschal. Thoughts?
 
Devils' Advocate said:
Does every 'decision' by every thing considered alive cause this split to occur? The number of universes created would have to be close to infinite.
Click to expand...
This is what I thought multiverse was about, and perhaps not just living actions but subatomic interactions. But I have never really read up on it, it's beyond my field of interest.
 
I don't think I like the multiverse idea. Its irresponsible for universes to multiply and expand endlessly. What if they run out of room? I don't hear anyone talking about that. What if they get too thin? That's even worse. Where did they come from in the first place? We still don't know.
 
It would be interesting as to what prompted the postulation that consciousness dosent somehow require a living organism.

I see consciousness as an emergent reactive property brought about by combined organic matter, by which in turn consciousness in a simpler sense can be consequently "stacked" or expanded into an ever more complex system like individual living cells within a human being of which collectively brings about a centralized version of consciousness.
 
waggindraggin said:
I don't think I like the multiverse idea. Its irresponsible for universes to multiply and expand endlessly. What if they run out of room? I don't hear anyone talking about that. What if they get too thin? That's even worse. Where did they come from in the first place? We still don't know.
Click to expand...
Legitimate questions. The only thing I don't like about It is having too short a lifespan for which even if any answers came about, it would perpetually evade us upon death, and arguably lost.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
I admit that I have doubts about the multiverse theory. For a bunch of reasons. The main one though is that this theory puts people back at the center of the universe.
Click to expand...
Interesting observation. I'd not thought of that.

Devils' Advocate said:
The multiverse theory puts us right back in the center seat again. Because every decision we humans make causes new multiverse divisions. Talk about hubris. What about dogs? When they choose to chase a squirrel or not, does that also cause one universe to split into two as well?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Devils' Advocate said:
What about cockroaches?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Devils' Advocate said:
What about the most simple life forms? Does every 'decision' by every thing considered alive cause this split to occur? The number of universes created would have to be close to infinite.
Click to expand...
Yes. I'm not sure it has to be a 'decision'. The guy who formulated the the idea was questioned on a TV programme and the interviewer asked the same question: If my dog, etc. The scientists said yes, another universe dependent upon whether the dog scratched or not, and moreover another dependent on the actions of the flea on the dogs back, and ... apparently it goes on to the atomic level, and on ad infinitum.
 
Thomas said:
Yes. I'm not sure it has to be a 'decision'. The guy who formulated the the idea was questioned on a TV programme and the interviewer asked the same question: If my dog, etc. The scientists said yes, another universe dependent upon whether the dog scratched or not, and moreover another dependent on the actions of the flea on the dogs back, and ... apparently it goes on to the atomic level, and on ad infinitum.
Click to expand...
So how does this fit into your religious view? knowing that for every good decision you have made, you have also made apparently an infinite number of bad ones. There is a you in the multiverse who doesn't believe in a God. There are those who believe a goldfish is God... so how many of these decisions are you to be held accountable? From an Abrahamic standpoint, I cannot fathom the concept. Multiverse Theory is a religion in and of itself. Probably derived from the idea that God is our decisions that seems to be a popular creed nowadays. None of the "evidence" is any more convincing (less IMO) than any religious document from anywhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top