Death is an illusion

I looked at the articles, and had various thoughts – the principle one being why is this line of thinking posted in 'belief and spirituality' rather than Science and the Universe or Philosophy?

But hey-ho ... the author's comments from his website, are in blue:

But biocentrism – a new theory of everything – tells us death may not be the terminal event we think. Amazingly, if you add life and consciousness to the equation, you can explain some of the biggest puzzles of science...
As I understand it, 'consciousness' is itself a mystery, so that mystery would have to be cracked before arguing a biocentrism?

Until we recognize the universe in our heads, attempts to understand reality will remain a road to nowhere.
LOL, no, no, no ... this is way too simplistic a reading ... that planet existed long before 'we' were there to comprehend it?

Everything you see and experience right now – even your body – is a whirl of information occurring in your mind.
Quite, and as is proved, step in front of an oncoming truck – which was no part of your consciousness – and ... so there is 'information' outside of us, which can effect us, so our mind-whirl of information is not the be-all and end-all.

According to biocentrism, space and time aren’t the hard, cold objects we think. Wave your hand through the air – if you take everything away, what’s left? Nothing. The same thing applies for time. Space and time are simply the tools for putting everything together.
Yet space and time are constituents of unfailing empirical proofs, and space and time was there before consciousness came along?

The answer is simple – reality is a process that involves your consciousness.
Involves, yes ... but don't suggest it's dependent on ...

Were that so, then a consciousness would be able to reproduce the dual-slit experiment, and it fail. But it doesn't. So is not consciousness then an integral part of the experiment? Which suggests consciousness 'acts' as predictably as matter 'acts' in the experiment ... or rather, consciousness is reduced to the same empirical domain as the physical world, and acts accordingly?

Death doesn’t exist in a timeless, spaceless world. Immortality doesn’t mean a perpetual existence in time, but resides outside of time altogether.
Well you haven't actually proven that ... those statements are not deduced from what you've just said ...

We generally reject the multiple universes of Star Trek as fiction, but it turns out there is more than a morsel of scientific truth to this popular genre.
I don't reject the idea of multiple universes as fiction. What I do suggest is any number of universes are possible, but that does not mean they are actual. I will come back to this ...

There are an infinite number of universes and everything that could possibly happen occurs in some universe.
Here we should pause to make sure we're all on the same page, because I might be wrong.

As I see this, in any given pico-second of time – or any given smallest measure of time you can conjure – every possibility possible in that infinitesimal moment constitutes an infinite number of universes, and again in the next infinitesimal moment, a whole new set of possible possibilities, and again in the next, ad infinitum ... and no two universes coincide precisely ... and that is just in relation to your existence.

Multiply that by every existing thing ... and everything that ever existed, and everything that might ever exist ... and then there's still more ...

At which point my brain explodes.

So I could say that an infinite number of possibilities, or universes, are available in any given moment, and that any given moment spawns an infinite number of possibilities/universes ... but actually, only one ...

+++

Death does not exist in any real sense in these scenarios. All possible universes exist simultaneously, regardless of what happens in any of them.
Hang on – that 'death does not exist' is not a given at all, is it? Surely death must exist in any number of universes in which I live?

(What you haven't done, is defined 'death' in a context that renders what's said a reasoned or rational statement ... )

Life has a non-linear dimensionality – it’s like a perennial flower that returns to bloom in the multiverse.
Ah, you're confounding the principle of life as such with an individual life ... in a vast number of universes life goes on without 'people' or 'consciousness'. I live, I die ... life goes on ... an asteroid hits this planet, shattering it entirely ... life goes on ...

Sorry ... there's a lot of words ... but I'm lacking substance here ...

+++

Taking the multiverse to be true ... and that there are an infinite number of universes ... by, in and through which 'Being' actualises itself in any number of possibilities .... how does this relate to 'me', when I view 'me' as a, instance of personhood?
 
RJM said:
The 'many worlds' interpretation implies that there are infinite different universes out there.
Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
There absolutely are. No idea how many but I can share having witnessed one that is so very near our own.

To the OP's post, I do share the same blind faith as most humans that there is a heaven that requires a lengthy journey including this blink of an eye earthly experience. The journey of our soul that God temporarily trapped in this material body.
 
Last edited:
Thomas said:
We generally reject the multiple universes of Star Trek as fiction, but it turns out there is more than a morsel of scientific truth to this popular genre.
I don't reject the idea of multiple universes as fiction. What I do suggest is any number of universes are possible, but that does not mean they are actual. I will come back to this ...
Click to expand...
Thomas, To me, your response here seems to concede philosophical Idealism (Mind is ultimate reality) because non-actual universes would have to be in some sort of context or container, and Mind is the best candidate for this. God hasn’t acted on, manifested, all of God’s ideas. Some, perhaps a super MANY, are still on/in God’s mind. I would call God’s mind the most essential part of God’s being, what defines Him most, his essence. One could, I suppose, claim that Mind is not God, but is part of God. Which came first the chicken or the egg? God could be seen as the chicken that laid the egg called mind, as in “God’s mind.” But chickens that didn’t unfold from egg heads are just things without wings. Creativity has inspirational and intentional “wings” that come only from Mind. God is a mere thing without Mind. Perhaps the best argument for Idealism is to ask “What would God be if He didn’t have a mind?” So, in this way, it wouldn’t even matter which (the chicken or the egg?) came first. The only consideration is which is most ESSENTIAL?
Suppose that in my/our theologizing here, I/we are merely projecting our own minds onto some sort of screen we call “reality.” Even if that is the case—that we are not really talking about God, but instead about our own thoughts about “God” ( Krishnamerhti’s “the pencil is not the thing”)—then we are saying that the most essential part of ourselves is our minds, and it would be the most terrible thing to waste by innattention. The most important thing we can do, and the best way that we can be is to be mindful, aware of our mind. This would be a worship of MInd. And any other worship would be fruitless, wing-less.
 
Aupmanyav said:
Yeah, I do not agree with the theory of "pure consciousness". We are atoms and molecules, we were that before our birth and will be that even after our death. We do not have the wherewithal to see this but we can understand this. It is a matter of understanding. No atom or molecule will carry our consciousness beyond death. However what constitutes us, 'physical energy' is conscious in its own way and there is interaction between the four forces and gravity (till we find the ToE).
This has been very well known to Hindu philosophers for thousands of years. Mandukya Upanishad (one of the main old Upanishads, Mukhya Upanishad) said: 'Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma' (All thing here are Brahman), Sankara said: 'Brahma satyam, jagan mithya ..' (Brahman (alone) is truth, the observed is an illusion ..)'.
Click to expand...
So happy to see that friends can disagree and still be friends. The masculine aggressive side of me always wants to be correct and win the argument. I have grown tired of that side of me, but to run away from it would not ever sufficiently hide it. It’s there for a good reason (and even if the reason is not a good one, it can’t just go away), so it’s best to include it as I transcend it. Perhaps resting in the deepest base of reality is Brahma? And from that base, my know-it-all masculine side can be softened to the point that friends can easily, gracefully, disagree?
Interesting that my own spiritual experiences lately have focused on subtle ENERGY, even as I continue to make the case for philosophical Idealism. I guess I’m closer to the pure consciousness camp of thought, and yet I gather energy to become more conscious and more highly and wholly developed. Love is a format of energy that transforms. Doesn’t really matter to me if it turns out to be a certain way that molecules dance together, or a purer awareness of an ultimate mental “reality.” What matters is that I get better at plugging into that format of energy. This emphasizes on love is perhaps the main way I can forgive my Christian faith’s contradictions. It seems more important than winning arguments. Is this, in your view, a release into Brahman? I suspect that Hinduism emphasizes “energy” . If that is the case, I’ve been Hinduizing my Christianity lately!!!!! Glad to call you a friend also.
 
TheLightWithin said:
Sorry for the loss of your friend 😑
Click to expand...
Be open to the possibility his contact from the other side/dimension. Perhaps in dreams or synchronistic signs or in deep feelings or guidance/ nudges. A close friend of mine appeared to make contact with me after death. Even if it is just our imagination, it is nonetheless a meaningful way to mentally “contact” the friendship that lives on in and through you
 
otherbrother said:
What is woo?
Click to expand...
Trying to gain favor? Yes, trying can be a block to mindfulness and wholeness. But what if attention to subtle energy is a bridge between material existence and a deeper, different, level/dimension of overall reality? It could be used without being depended on, worshipped. As a gateway to the unified field that “wants not.”
 
Aupmanyav: “Subtle Energy introduces woo.”

Suppose overall reality is different at different depths. Quantum science witnesses strange interactions deep inside physical reality. The book Undivided Universe by David Bohm and Basil Hiley called the deeper subatomic substrate “implicate order.” Because of strange communication and distant effects that they called “active information,” they inferred something like a deeper (and I am assuming mind-like) “super-implicate” order. Whether the deepest level of physical reality is that way because it always was Mind, or it took on the character of mind because of a super interactive dance of tiny matter (that is, consciousness was born from or of physical reality), mind-like it is (or I should say is THOUGHT to be by these scientists taking an educated guess).

So, getting from the explicate order of “classical objects” (like us physical beings) to a super-implicate order that is either Mind or mind-like, would likely involve navigation through the middle layer, implicate order, where things behave like energy flows and fields. This would be the realm of subtle energy.

While spirituality may identify too much with that realm or aspect of overall reality, and at some point cause excessive longing, wooing, dreaming, illusion, it is a tantric means of moving deeper. Dogzhen (sp?) is when we go straight to the Primordial Source, and bypasses all the dreamy subtle energy stuff. But not all people (probably myself included) can take the fast track deep dive of Dogzhen, so tantric energy practices becomes a useful gateway to the super-implicate order or what many call “God.”

When I experience good old love as a kind of naked energy independent of human emotions and relationships I feel I am moving through the gateway to Ultimate Reality.

Neat energetic experiences that approximate lucidity in my dreams are part of my energy sensing, tantric, spiritual practice.

In a recent dream, I was able to heal a man with cancer as he approached a door. The man was probably my regular self being assisted, healed/grown, by my spirit self. The door was likely the moment when my spirit self was reentering my physical body after wandering a bit in the astral plane or implicate order or heaven. Right before going into the door I felt a volt-like intensity lifting the afflicted (overly physical?) man in the air. Other characters (spirits or aspects of True Self?) were huddled around me assisting me in the intense healing and levitating act. I was having kundiliny (sp?) overload right there in my dream. In lucid dreaming speak, the dream was becoming destabilized as I neared the wake state. At any rate, it was an intense experience of energy, similar to the knitting sensation I once had during an astral projection experience when I was coming back into my body.

I suppose one can get lost in this “wooing” of God or Ultimate Reality, and never go all the way to whatever Ultimate Reality is. But it is a wilderness that I trust will lead to an internal promised land, a deeper connection to the Ground of Being (Tillich’s term).
 
Remember our Trinity pondering a few months ago? My recent fascination with energy as an object of contemplation led me to the thought that electricity’s “volt” (pressure, raw power) may match The Father. It’s “amps” (rate of flow), the Holy Ghost. And Watts would be akin to spiritual capacity that combines the two, a Christlike divinity of a person, similar to the wattage of an electrical appliance.
Ohms is the resistance factor. So becoming humble and submitting to God would be analogous to lowering resistance (either by making the spirit “wire” larger/wider, or by improving the purity/conductivity of the vessel/wire.
 
wil said:
A luncheon yesterday, an early wake yesterday afternoon, the viewing today....an overnite wake set for two weeks from now and already over a hundred rsvpd....he was loved and will be missed
Click to expand...
I spend much of my time on the other side, it fills my heart with much sorrow to hear of such losses.
 
TheLightWithin said:
Define woo
Click to expand...
Believing in supernatural.
Chat GPT: "Religious woo" is a colloquial term that often refers to beliefs, practices, or claims associated with religion that are considered to lack empirical evidence or scientific support. It can imply a sense of skepticism or criticism towards certain religious ideas that are viewed as irrational, superstitious, or based on faith rather than reason.
 
Last edited:
otherbrother said:
Thomas, To me, your response here seems to concede philosophical Idealism (Mind is ultimate reality) ...
Click to expand...
For me, God is the ultimate reality.

Just a note: in discussing cosmology, I was not discussing God. There is a significant distinction between discussing cosmology and discussing ontology – the arguments of the former are irrelevant with regard to the latter.

My reflections here were not theological, but simply trying to follow the discourse which seems to say a lot, but actually argues not much, or nowhere near enough to make the point. Falr enough, in that what we've got is a soundbite, as it were, but even on the author's own site there seems to be a gap between the premise and its proof, that was all.

otherbrother said:
... because non-actual universes would have to be in some sort of context or container, and Mind is the best candidate for this.
Click to expand...
Or, as has been said for more than two millennia ... Logos.

otherbrother said:
I would call God’s mind the most essential part of God’s being, what defines Him most, his essence.
Click to expand...
I would say Logos reveals Theos, but while what Logos reveals gives us a sense and a certainty, there is still a distinction between what we can know and predicate of Theos, and the θεία οὐσία (theia ousia), the Divine Essence, in Itself, which transcends all categories and all distinctions, including Mind.

otherbrother said:
—then we are saying that the most essential part of ourselves is our minds, and it would be the most terrible thing to waste by innattention. The most important thing we can do, and the best way that we can be is to be mindful, aware of our mind. This would be a worship of MInd. And any other worship would be fruitless, wing-less.
Click to expand...
It's a variation of Anselm's argument, positing Mind (rather than God) as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived."

We may argue mind is the most exemplary thing we can conceive of ourselves (I hold a reservation in that regard), but that doesn't therefore mean it's the most exemplary thing of God.
 
georgeingraham said:
The journey of our soul that God temporarily trapped in this material body.
Click to expand...
I have seen evidence in my dream content that the spirit or soul experiences our body and physical existence as uncomfortably limiting, very often depicted as being in prison. The dream content of passing through a checkpoint (keys or special privileges often required) seems to correlate with images and feelings of going (back) into vehicle, room, cave, etc. , suggesting that the imagery is going a as long with the astral body (soul, spirit?) returning to the physical body. Sometimes the soul has trouble finding the car it parked somewhere. I think the soul/spirit/astral body is reluctant to be contained after moving about more freely in the astral plane (quantum realm?). No wonder angels are depicted as having wings?
Another (not necessarily mutually exclusive) interpretation is that the transition images and feelings are all about the mind as a whole relating to its own part-mind projections or “thoughts.” The thoughts so limit the mind, that it is reluctant to be hemmed in by them. The prison could be the discrete mental constructs themselves, which are not as potent or real as mind-as-a-whole or mind itself. And perhaps whole-mind glimpses or impressions (mind sensing itself) are so seamlessly connected to Universal Mind that it makes little sense to think of it as an individual mind. mind is, for all intents and ultimate purposes, Mind.
Two different interpretations, but perhaps just different views of same thing? If identifying with body, the more boundless thing would be like an energy thing or spirit. But if identifying with the consciousness observing the content, the mind/thought interaction would apply. Perhaps the difference between being/participating and consciousness/observing/awareness.
 
Thomas said:
I would say Logos reveals Theos, but while what Logos reveals gives us a sense and a certainty, there is still a distinction between what we can know and predicate of Theos, and the θεία οὐσία (theia ousia), the Divine Essence, in Itself, which transcends all categories and all distinctions, including Mind.
Click to expand...
Thomas, thanks for playing in my sandbox with me. While I always bite off way more than I can chew, the above remark is one that I feel I can at least partially digest. I have used terms like Mind Itself to describe the apparent boundless character of mind (as opposed to its mere projections, thoughts). Theos might be more like than not like “Mind Itself” or Pure Mind. Theos would be pure in the sense that nothing could grasp it. But suggested in the Word, which would be like a thought from Theos? One might call Theos “Mind”’behind's all other minds. And perhaps our own minds are, in fact, too limited to perceive Theos. God by definition must remain unknowable in the way we think we understand things, get a handle on it, figure it out. But perhaps we can sense the action of Theos, in the form of Logos? And even that requires a lot of clearing cobwebs from our heads/minds.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top